HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 18, 1999CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40TH AVENUE N,E., COLUMEI~A HEIGHTS~ MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2506
ADMINISTRATION
Donald G. dolly
Marlaine Szurek
dulienne Wyckoff
City Manager
WaIter R. ~hst
Meeting of'
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Purpose of Meeting:
NOTICE OF OFFICIAL MEETING
Notice is hereby given that an official meeting
is to be hem itt the
as follows:
CI'IY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL~CITY STAFF
MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1999
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
WORK SESSION
AGENDA
Consent Items
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4501 Madison Street N.E. Report
Review of Building Permit Fees
Authorize Purchage of Tractor/Backhoe
Emergency Generator Connection (~ Murzyn Hall
Silver Lake Aeration System
Classification of Tax Forfeit Parcels'
Discussion Items
1. Pre-Placement Medical Examinations
2. City Web Site
3. Jeff% Bobby & Steve's Autoworld
4. Goose Droppings- LaBelle Park
5. Handling Drivt~g/Parking Hard Surface Hardships
6. Amendment No. 1 to Joint Powers Agreement Es'tablishing
the Northstar Corridor Development Authority
The Ciiy qf Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or
employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals' with
disabilines to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped
persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secre-
tary at 782-2800, Extension 209, to make arrangements. (TDD/782-2806 for deqf or hearing impaired only)
MEMO
/)
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Ken A. dcrson, Community Development Director
Fax 782-2857
Donna Mattson, Housi~ Director 4~
Anoka County (.7ontmunity Action, 783-4739
45th & Madison
Oclober 15,1999
RECEIVED
ngI 1 $1999
30MMUNllY BEVELOPMEN5
l~-n, ACCAP is withdrawing the rvqucs[ I.o rt. dnct. the asses*mt'nts for the pn,p~rty at 4.~;th and
Madison St~'t't NE. We do however i. te.d t,, &, a aIfoMahl~ h~msi, g, proj~ at this site next
year and ,~ill continue to work with the Ctnmty for thc purchase ,,f this lot.
you have any questions or co~¢erns please c, mtac~ me at 783-4739
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Meeting of:
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business ORIGINATING EXECUTIVE
NO: 9-C~ DEPARTMENT: EDA DIRECTOR
APPROVAL
DATE: August 12, 1999
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Executive Director presented a proposal to the EDA Commissioners
regarding a tax forfeit parcel at 4501 Madison Street N.E. This site is being considered by ACCAP for
consmaction of a home as part of the Corrections Affordable Housing Program. The City Manager
received a letter fi.om the Anoka County Land Commissioner and a copy ora memo fi.om Patrick
McFarland, Executive Director, of the Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP). In short,
ACCAP is requesting that the City waive or reduce the outstanding special assessments on this property
in the amount of $9,278.20. The purpose for waiving the special assessments will make the lot more
"financially viable for this affordable housing project." At the discussion dttring the last meeting,
Commissioners raised several questions regarding the size of the lot, lot access, status of sewer and
water disconnects, existing driveway access easements, and possible transfer by the County of the
property to the City or EDA. Please refer to the memo dated August 11, 1999 fi.om the City Planner
with attachments which ~n~wers some of these questions.
RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the EDA President, this item has been placed on this EDA
Agenda for further consideration by the Board of Commissioners. The Staffis recommending that the
EDA consider the proposal and submit recommendations to the City Council for consideration at the
meeting of August 23, 1999 regarding this request.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to recommend the City Council waive the outstanding special
assessments for the property at 4501 Madison Street N.E. in the amount $ ; and furthermore,
direct that staff inform the Anoka County Land Commissioner of said recommendation.
ALTERNATE MOTION: Move to recommend the City Council request Anoka County tra,~fer the tax
forfeit parcel at 4501 Madison Street N.E. to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
for $.
Attachments
EDA ACTION:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 ~aOTH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55,421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TOD 782-2BO6
Ma)or
G~ry L. Pctcrson
Councilmembers
Donald G. Jol~y
Maz]ain¢ Szurek
~ulicnne Wyckoff
$ohn Nunter
City .~lanager
Walter R. Fchst
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date: August 11, 1999
To:
From:
Re:
Ken Anderson, CommLmity Development Director
Joe Hollman, City Planne~/'~
Information regarding 4501 Madison Street NE
The property at 4501 Madison Street NE is zoned R-2, single and two family residential. The
parcel is roughly 41.5 feet wide and is 116.7 feet long. Note that there is a driveway easement
over the northerly 12 feet. The following summarizes minimum yard and density requh'ements
in the R-2 District.
Minimum lot area shall be 6,500 square feet - existing property is roughly 4,843 square
feet*.
· Lot width shall be 60 feet - subject property is 41.5 feet wide*.
· Front yard setback shall be 25 feet.
· Rear yard setback shall be 30 feet.
· When a lot is not served by a public alley, the property shall have one side yard not less
than I0 feet and the other side yard shall be 5 feet. Also a side yard abutting a street shall
be no less than 10 feet.
· No accessory sl~uctu~e, including attached garages, or any combination of accessory
structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet.
· Lot coverage shall not exceed 35%.
*Regarding the lot width and lot size requirements, Section 9.104(4) of the Zoning Ordinance
states that a lot that has frontage on a public fight-of-way and said space requh'ements for the
disu-ict in which it is located are met or adjusted to conform to the following may be utilized for
single family detached dwelling purposes provided the measurements for such area meet 100%
of the front yard, side yard and rear yard sethaek requirements of the Ordinance and 60% of the
minin'lum lot area or lot width requirements of the Ordinance. The property is in compliance
with these requirements
Please note that according to our records the sanitary sewer service has been abandoned to the
property line and the water service has been abandoned and removed to the Main.
The bu~lcling envelope for a single family home on this parcel is approximately 26.5 feet wide
and 61.7 feet long (1,635 square feet). The minimum floor area requirement for a one story
dwelling containing 3 bedrooms or less is 1,020 squaze feet. Based on this requirement, there
appears to be room on the property to construct a single family home with an attached garage. A
detached garage could also be constructed, but it could not be built with.in the 12 foot driveway
easement over the northerly portion of the lot.
0731 ~ISS!SSI,PPI BOULEVARD iq.'w 'COON RXFIDS.~I~.~I.;ESOTA T,!e;h~r.e · ~ '.'.
/ -. - .s'.'~- ' "
S C ,,.~',~T.D
RECEIVED
JUL 2 0 1999
Office of ~ve~ Se~,ice~ Diu~n
GOVERNME~ CE~ER
2100 3~ Avenue · Anon, Minneso~ 5530~65
(612) 32~
July 7, 1.999
GENE RAFFERTY
Land Cem~;,.ssioner
Mr. Walter R. Fehst, City Manager
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Re: Tax-Forfeit Parcel 26-30-24-43-0012 - 45th and Madison Street NE
Dear Mr. Fehst:
I am transmitting to you a proposal m.~de by the Anoka County Community Action Program
(ACCAP) to buy the captioned parcel for their Affordable Housing Program.
We are all aware of the critical need for this type of shelter in our county. Commissioner Kordiak
feels the highest and best use of the property is to put an affordable home on it rather than letting
the lot set vacant. One of ACCAP's requests is to ask the city to forgive some $9,200 in special
assessments. One other alternative could be for the city to reduce the assessments against the
property.
Would you kindly bdng ACCAP's request regarding special assessments before the city council for
their consideration. Thank you.
GR:bje
Enclosure
cc:
Commissioner Jim Kordiak
Commissioner Dennis D. Berg
Patdck McFafland, ACCAP Director
Yours very truly,
Gene Raffe~
Anoka County Land Commissioner
FAX: 323-5682 Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer TDD/TTY: 323-5259
MEMO
To.'
From:
Subject:
Date:
Gene R~g~.rey, !~,,d Cornrn/ssioner ~or Anoka County
Patrick McFaAand, Executive Dixectar
Anoka County Co-~-~,,~ty Action, 783-4728
4501 Mad/son Street, Col nha Heights
ACCAP is interested in purch,,ing the property at 4501 Madison Street in Colur~hia HeiSts
for the ACCAP/Co~ons Affndable Housing Progr'~ Please advise Cc~,~sioner Kordiak
of our intew~t.
When deterr~;-~g the price for the 14 l~e awa~e that there are $927820 in ontstanding
assessments aga~ this property. They are as follow~:
91 795.60
94 130.88
95 2843.78
96 5507.94
Utilities owed f~om prior owner
Seal Coat the Road
Bcarcl ap the House and attorney fees
Demolishition and reraovd of the prior house
I would a~so Like to bring to your a~:tention the water and sewer connection costs, wkich are from
$~,500.00 to $5,500.00 because the water main is located in the rnidcLle of the street. To
connect these utilities it ~ entail digging up the street, shoring, installing copper line, ~'toring
the ~treet and any effected cu~ing. Another item to note is that thi~ lot has a driveway easement
over the north 12 feet for the neighbor on the east. We have conducted a title search at the
County Recorders office and the ts.xes appear to ~ paid and the assessed mazket value on the
land is $6200.00.
ACC-AP would ask that the assessments against ~h;, property he ~r~iven so that the cost involved
with this lot be financially viable for this affon~le housing project.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at The above number or Dorma Mattson
at 783-4739
CC: Donna Maroon.
./ocument Name: a16
,'t~I~T'rNT000379jIj'r~07999907
MASTER
K~Y: 00268285 YEAR: 2000
ACCT:F26 30 24 43 0012
LOC:12 4501 NE MADISON ST
I~GA.L:THE Wl/2 OF LOT 4 BLK i
INQUIRY SCREEN
FEE OWNER:MN STATE OF IN TRUST
TAXPAYER:MN STATE OF IN TRUST
C/O ANOKA CO PROP P. EC & TAX
2100 3RD AVE
GILLETTES ANNEX TO COL HGTS, ANO~fA MN 55303
EX N 86 FT ~OF, ALSO EX E ASSESSOR:MN STATE OF IN TRUST
CITY:COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PC: C/O ANOKA CO PROP i~EC & TAX
(~TE: 1983 /~NO~A MN 55303
ACRES: PP P. EF: PARENT:
VALUATIONS_.---.******************** 1999 DATA **************************
LAND:~ * TAX DUE TAX OUTST P/I/C TOTAL DUE
*
EST ~T:
TAX KKT:
TAX CAP:
6300 *STC:4B1 SPEC:
6300 * NOTES: ADJ-N NAL-Y
104 *ACT CD: DESC:
*
BUILDING INFO
TYPE:FA
1V
BLT: EFF:
CONST:
FUNC: DATA:
MESSAGE:
DELQ-N *
DITCH: BEN ACRES: BEN AMT:
LE%'Y:14013I AREA:CH01 INCDST: AG P:
WASTE:
LAST SALE:9999/99/99 PCA:5101 EXE~PTIONS:FOR -
ACTIvITY:1999/05/05 STC:4B1 RES-NON-HST CHA.IN:*NONE*-
~UB: YR:2000
Date: 7/7/1999 Time: 8:23:32 AM
These minute:
not approved.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 17,1999
CALL TO ORDER - The Regular Meeting oftbe Columbia Heightz Economic Development Authority (EDA) was
called to order by President Rue~m.,~n at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 17, 1999, in the Parkview Villa Corem:laity
Room B, 965 40* Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Mi--esota.
ROLL CALL
Commigsion Members Present:
Staff Present:
Robert Ruel6m.n,~. Pa~cia Jindra, Marlaine Szurek, Don Jolly. Gary Peterson,
Julienne Wyckoff, and John Hunter
Walt Fehst, Executive Director
Ken Anderson, Deputy Executive DirecWr
Jmanifer Stoop~s-Moltamha, Parkview V/Ih Public Housing .Adrn~n
pLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA - There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA (These items are considered to be routine by the EDA Board of Commissioners and will be
enacted as pan of the Consent Agenda by one motion).
A. Adopt the consent agenda items as listed below.
1) Approval of Minutes - regular meemig of July 20, 1999.
Move to adopt the minutes of theSuly 20, 1999 r~gular mee~ng as presented in wriffng.
2)
Financial Report and Payment of Bilh.
a. Financial Statement - July, 1999.
b. Payment of Bills - July, 1999.
President Rue~mznn tabled the Financial Report and Payment of Bills until later in the mee~ug.
MOTION by Szurek, seconded by Peterson, w adopt the consent agenda items as listed. All ayes. MOTION
CARRIED.
REPORT OF 'l l'tE MANAGEMIgNT COMPANY
A. Jennifer Stoopes-Moltamba, Park'view Villa Public Housing .idmini~xator.
Ms. Stoopes-Mokamba stated the elevators are continuing to have problems get~g stock, doors not closing, etc.
Lagerquist Elevators has been out to uy and repair them.
Bids have been received for cle.-i~$ of the common m~as. Staff'recommended Blue Pdbbon Chem-dry for
$2,358.10.
Ms. Stoopes-Moltamha reported on building occupancy v,mhe~. Re-ce~6ficafion of the North building la
complete. The annual picuic will be held on August 27, 1999. The Resident Councll Bazaar will be held on
September 25, 1999. Pat and Rueben Bush are on vacation until August 23. Stoopes-Mol~,mha informed members
of her discussion wi~ the Resident Council regarding the type ofimprovemonts to be made with the new proposed
Ms. Stoopes-Mokamha informed members of her research toward the purchase of software for low-rent pubhc
housing. She recommended Nan McK~y which is very user friendly.
Ms. Stoopes-Mol~,mba indicated this would be her last meeting with the EDA and th,,~Ved them for their support.
CIT'~ZEN FORUM TO ADDRESS EDA ON MAi l ~.RS NOT ON THE AGENDA
!¢Ls. S'aflia, Resident Council President, requested the EDA consider not accepting Ms. Stoopes-Mokamba's
resignation as many residents would like to see her stay on at Park-view Villa. 113 residents signed a petition
Economic Development Authority Minutes
August 17, 1999
Page 2
requesling she not resign and asking the EDA to work ou! whatever it would Ulce to have her stay. Ms. Barnes
indicated everyone's regret in Je~,,i+'er's ~siguslion, but it is her choice to move on. Crest View Corporation is
cunvntly seeking appl/cants for the position.
Residents of Parkview Villa questioned the elevator repair status. Mr. Rue~,~-,,,, explained the HUD fonds have
been applied for and the sumetim~s cliff'cut! ,~,~ of obtaining bids. Mr. Ande~on indicated Ted Smith of Elevator
Advisory Group has met with him. Ms. Stoopes. Mo~-sr~ha, and IVIf. Crault to determ.~e iten~ which have already
been improved and can be removed from the bid specifications prior to publicizing the adver~isemen! for bids.
Information will be submitted to HUD. This will need to be completed for approval of funds by October. He
indicated there is no quick fl~ A new CIAP program will become available after October 1~' with f~n~g based
upon the number of units, not s competitive application for available funds. Mr. Hunter questioned the cost of
repa/ring ',he elevators ver~ns the cost of new elevators. Mr. Anderson indicated it wns the consulting firm's
recommendation that repairing the elevators was the best option. Necessary repa£r/replacement of the con,rollers is
the major concer~ Other concerns such as levelers, eyes, interior in~rovements, and ~afcty and code i.r~ues were
discussed.
Residents of Paskview Vilh questioned whe~ the conWact with Cree~ View Corporation will be up for renewal. Mr.
Anderson indicated on June I, 1999 a one year extension of the conlract was renewed. Residents requested a voice
when the contract is renewed. Mr. Rue~i,n~,, asked residents ~o "wait and see how d,i,gs go", and to not harbor ill
feelings again~! the new pe~on hired.
RETURN TO TABLED FINANCIAL REPORTS
Ms. Wyckoff questioned why small dollar amounts were paid to Bill Crault, for exs,~, lc. Ms. 5toopes-Mot-sr~ha
explained peary cash is not an option and until recent approval to obtain gas at the Public Works Deparlment, Mr.
(~ault paid for hw~ mowing gas hlm,eli*. Each amount is then divided belwe~n the alu'ce ftlBds for Park'view Villa.
Other items such as sytopathy cards, printer cartridges, etc. were on the list MS. Barnes indicated there are
approved vendors for these type of purchases. Mr. Petersun questioned why there was no perry cash fund for
Park~ew Villa. MS. Jindra indicated th~ has been discussed with the Fi,,n,~¢e Department previously and is a
complex issue. Mr. Fehst indicated it may be ~me to ngaln look a~ the posst~ility of a petty cash fund.
MOTION by Peterson, second by ~ to aw, ore Resolution 9~-12, Resolution of the Columbia Heights
Economic Development Authority O/DA) approving the fi,~s,~cial mtements for July, 1999 and approving payment
of bills for July, 1999. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOGNITION. PROCLAMATIONS. PRESENTATIONS. GURSTS - None.
ITEMS ~'QR CONSIDERATION
A. Other Ordln,,~ces and Resolutions.
1. Community l .ml'rovemont Asalmnce Progr~un, Pork'view Villa North, Resolmion 99-13.
Mr. Anderson explained the new CXAP program funding allocation is dete~i,~d by number of m~its in Parkview
Villa Nor~. With 101 uniu, the allucagon for FFY 1999 would be $135,269. There is su~ necessary
documentation to submit by August 26, 1999. This new program wi~ have the distinct advantage of allowing the
I~DA to imow what funds will be received. Last year duri~ the competitive ClAP process tbe~ were $$0 million
in requ,-,"-ts with only $I0 ,,,talon noble. Ms. Stoopes-Mot','"~ stn~d several iUnns the CIP Co,,,,nlttee looked
at as necessary i~,~,~vvements included addi~ in other available boile~ to system, addi~ values for water shut off
to each floor, new kitchen cabinets and living room ii~t, and new hallway lights. Elevator concerns were also
discussed. Mr. Anduson reminded m~nbers that the ClAP funds a~ only for the North building. Ms. Stoopes-
Molrsm~ voiced concerns of the Resident Council stating they s~e less concerned about up~radin~ the interiors of
thc elevators and would like more considention for n~v kitchen cabinets.
Economic Development Authority Minutes
August 17, 1999
Page 3
MOTION by Petorson, seconded by Sz~ek, to waive the reading of Resolution 99-13, there being stop. lc copies
available to the public. All ayes. MOTION CARR~D.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Szurek, to approve Resolution 99-13, Public Housing Authority (PI-IA) Board
Resolution Approving CIAP Budget (form HUD:52820) with the addition of the elevator improvement amount. All
ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Jolly, to aFp,~,ve the Certification of a Drug Free Workplace, form HUD -
50070; and furthermore, to authorize the President to atXest and sign same. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
2. Acquire Public Housing Management Software Prowl'am.
Ms. Stoopes-Mol~amba indicated Parkview Villa currently uses a msnual ledger sheet system to perform public
housing management activities. Program~ from three seftware companies were tested. Nan McKay offered the
"C~reat plsins" program, including tenant accounts receivable, leasing m,,~,ger and almual update service for one
year. The bid was $11,960.00, with most of the funds available in the 1999 budget. This system is used by the
cities of Kichfield and St. Louis Park, *nd Dakota County. Each reference was contacted and is very pleased with
the user friendly system and system suppor~ from Nan McKay. This system would allow transfer of im'ormation
over the Interact to HLrD. Mi'. Ruerfim~nn felt any system used should tie into the City computer system. Ms.
Barnes suggested asking the company if the program could be tested for several month.s. Mi'. Ruel~i~n,nn suggested
tabling this item to the September meeting.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wyckoff, to table action on the Acqu/sition of Publlc Housing Management
Software Program. All ayes. Motion em-fled.
B. Bid Considerations - None.
C. Other Business
1. Auditors 1998 EDA Fi~,~cial Analysis and Management Considerations.
Ms. Feb~t stated the auditor's indicated the City is under-staffed to handle the Section 8 program, and therefore, felt
this was a positive aft'u'mation wward turning the program back over to Melxo HRA. It was initially felt local
conlrol would be better for local people. This did not hold Uue when portability c~me in to play. It was also
thought the prog~m would cover its ow~ cost, however money is being lost with additions to the program such as
the Family Self Sufficiency program. Ms. Fehst indicated be wonts the Housing Coorelinstor position to be filled
soon, and stated this new position would include added respons~ilities to help the Division Head. Mr. Ruenima~'a
requested Mr. Feh~t include Ms. $indra ~ himselt'on related Colmcil work session agendas for the budget. MS.
Anderson stated the auditor is verifying ~ud reconciling the amount of funds that should go back to the Me~ro HRA
at time of wansfer. This lura-hack should be resolved by year end.
MOTION by Szo~k, seconded by Hunter, to receive the Auditors EDA Fi-*n¢lal ,&n,lysis ~nd Management
Considerations for December 31, 1998 ~s presented.
MS. Fehst left for another meeting.
2. Purkview Villa Proposed Capital
Ms. Stoopes-Mok~mha indicated the Cl~ Comrni~'e will meet again in a week or two. She highlighted items
discussed as priorities from the ~[llllli~: re-hook four boilers back into the system, add butterfly valves to zone
off each floor to shut off weter, replace kitchen cabinets and llving room light, ~nd replace h~llway lights. The
Committee felt it was importam to keep upgrading the units for resident satisfaction ,nd m&rketability. Ms.
Anderson expressed concera that with Ms. Stoopes-Mokamba leaving it would be helpful to have this information
in a spreadsheet form with items to do, costs, projected yeaz (i.e. one to five years), ~nd funding source. Discussion
followed regarding work to be done in the penthouse. Ms. Rue~mann indicated tha! if this was necessary, he would
speak with Mr. Fehst and could re-addsess these improvements in two weeks as a budget amendment at a special
EDA meeting. Ms. Stoopes-Moksmba indicated the work is not an emergency and not necessary until next year.
3. Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2000.
Mi'. Anderson presented a ch~t copy ofthe 2000 Budget as a work in progress to the EDA. He indicated the levy
must be submitted to Anoka County in September. Ms. Anderson indicated he would send out a revised budget
Economic Development Authority Minutes
August 17, 1999
Page 4
with a p,~m~ry document for FDA l~view. He l'~,.;-ded members that budget fi~s wo~d c~ge for 2~ due
W ~e ~le of~ ~plexes ~d ~e ~ ~ck of~e ~on 8 ~ He ~o nord F~d 203, P~ew V~
No~ ~ows m ~ ~on ~2,~5, but ~ded m~ ~e $135,~ ~ue ~m ~e ~ ~t ~ not
~fle~ed m ~ ~t ~. ~,~ felt ~d n~ w~ ~d ~d ~g. ~. ~d~co ~cated
·ese ~-m~n w~e ~i~ed long ago. ~. logy ~oned ~el ~. ~. ~n ~d ~e Budget
~cludes ~3,~ pl~ ~ge ~efim for a ~m~W ~el~t ~t ~ $8,~0 f~ ~ ~ ~sigon.
~. ~e~ ~cated he ~ ~ ~ ~. Fe~ ~g~g P~ V~ ~fl~ ~d ~e 2~ Budget ~d
le~. He ~o mgges~d ~e le~ ~ ~t at ~e ~ ~ it ~ ~le ~ ~duce ~ but ~t ~ ~e it ~.
~d~on esau,ted ~e lew at $111,~ for ~ ~A ~d $80,~ for ~ ~ ~,~i-5 ~e ~d ~ket
~ue ~ ~e ~e ~ ~t ye~. ~. ~on m~d ~e ~A ~o~d ~b~t ~e p~ buret m ~cfl. ~.
~e~ms~ ~gge~d ~e ~A ~ p~ ~ ~ A~ ~ ~cfl ~g or ~e Au~ 30 ~cfl Work
Se~iom
4. 4501 Madhon Sueet N'~ Stafl'Rzpon.
Mr. A~de~on indicated ACC~ w~ ~ com~ a ho~ on ~ p,u~ ~d ~ a ~on ~ ~e ~cial
uses~ ag~i~c~ ~e ~. D~sion ~ed ff~e pr~ ~ b~ble, w~t ~e ~t ~, wo~d
it ~ ~ble ~ ff ob~ed by ACC~, ff ~ nei~r wo~d ~ ~ ~ M ~e Ci~ co~d ob~ ~e
pro~ ~d se~ it ~elves. ~. S~k w~ not co~o~ble ~ ~1~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~e p~.
~sion fo~owe~
MOTION by Szurek, seconded by lmdra, to offer Anoka Counv $1.00 and value consideration for the property at
4501 Mad~on SUeet NE. Mr. Ande~on indicated Anoka Couu~ set the value on the property at $6,200. All
ayes. Motion carried.
5. Section 8 Repor~
Mr. Auder~on indicated Section 8 program utiBzation was dow'a to 80 percenL He rated Mr. R~ch~d is
curremly going through the waling l~t to increase the program utfl~xa~on.
Mr. Anderson indicated he is t~-viewing the CEE agreement and upon completion will obtain the necesrary
signaO~res w finsli-e the ~eelllenL
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A) Report of the Deputy Execotive lFeector.
Mr..~,,a,.rson stated he has been ~,,,~ched by a local finn regarding 3800 5~' Sueet NE, the old Minneepolis Steel
building,, to construct a new building at the site. This ~,~,~ny was putchesed in April, 1999 by a ~m from Denver
for approx~nately $1,750,000 and they a~e now e~t.~g ,~,,v,c,~imntely $3,000,000. Negotiagom con, hue. The
local firm que~oned how nmch ~ is available and if g~,~e a~ State redevelopment gran~ available.
The next EDA meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, Septembe~ 21, 1999 in Cr-....,.,,-i~ Room B at
Villa.
Meeting ad. joumed by P~esident Ruetlimalm at 8:50 p.m.
Party Muscovi~z
~xcorcling Secretary
INFORMATIONAL CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Work Session of October 18, 1999
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: (~2,~ jCITY MANAGER
NO: Community Developmen~r~ APPROVAL
ITEM: Building Permit Fee Information BY: Mel Collov~ BY:
NO: DATE: October 12, 1999
Issue Statement: At the request of a City Council Member, staff has prepared this review and comparison of Building
Permit fees with surrounding Municipalities.
Background: This Municipality is required to enforce this Code by Minnesota Statute 16B.62. and Minnesota Rule
1300.2100 as modified by Chapter 1305. In surveying Fridley, New Brighton, Minneapolis, and Saint Anthony, all these
Municipalities, including Columbia Heights, use the Fee Schedule in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Separate
permits for plumbing, mechanical, and electrical are also required whether the electrical inspections are conducted by a
municipal contract inspector or the State Board of Electricity. The value of construction is determined by the guidelines
supplied by the Minnesota Department of Administration, Building Code Division. Within the individual Codes,
plumbing, mechanical, and electrical, provisions for permits and fees are provided. The municipal inspection department
is contracted by the Minnesota Department of Health to conduct plumbing plan review and issuance of permits. Along
with this responsibility comes the authority to levy fees. All these areas are governed by statutes. The Plumbing Code is
required to be enforced by municipalities with a population of over 5,000 and having a municipal water system. If
capable personnel are not available to conduct the plumbing functions, the Health Department will accept the functions. If
no municipal water and sewer system is available, this area is covered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Analysis: The "excess" in Permit Fees for this year, 1999, is quite unusual for this Municipality. The major projects for
the past two years were construction on buildings which could be inspected by the State. These include the schools in the
City of Columbia Heights, the schools in the City of Hilltop, and the Crest View remodeling and new construction. The
Building Official contacted the State Building Official, Mr. Tom Joachim, and requested the contracts for these state
projects. If the City of Columbia Heights Inspection Department was not awarded these contracts, the inspections and
permits would be the responsibility of the State Building Code Division or whomever was awarded the contracts. The fees
from these contracts turned into a "windfall" for the community. With all the expenses incurred by this Department, in a
normal construction year, fees generated do not cover expenses of this Department. If we are to "break out" Building
Inspection only the fees will cover costs but, when adding in Planning and Zoning and other Community Development
functions, the fees do not cover the expenses. It should also be taken into consideration the other duties conducted by
Building Inspection such as: second hand merchant licensing, liquor licensing, taxi licensing, water meter sales, beer
licensing, wine licensing, door to door merchants, etc. These additional licensing duties added over $45,000 in revenue to
the General Fund the last four months of 1998. These are functions that are not necessarily related to Building Inspection
or Community Development. In the budget these additional revenues go into the General Fund, but this Department does
the "paper shuffling" and issues the licenses. Other departments are also involved in vehicle inspections, background
investigations, etc. If these additional revenues are considered, the funding for the Department would be very close to the
expenditures.
The building permit fees are increased approximately every three years when the Minnesota Department of
Administration Building Code Division adopts a newer version of the UBC. This process includes public hearings and the
"opinion" of an Administrative Judge. Staff recommends adoption of the "smaller" periodic increase, rather than to wait
for making several UBC fee schedule changes at one time as was done in 1995. The increase in 1995 was approximately
35%. At the adoption of the 1994 Fee Schedule, there was a City Council action reserving 20% of all Building Permit
Fees for a revolving abatement fund. This fund has been used for abatement. Some examples of abatement include: sub-
standard building demolition, cleaning of garbage houses, etc. The costs are assessed to the property in the form of a
special assessment and the assessment amount with interest is returned to the fund for future use.
Attachments- Council Letter of November 9,1998, Various Code sections.
COUNCIL ACTION:
uested
City of Columbia Helqnts, Mn. 55423 PROTErTIVE INSPECTIONS, BUILDING PEP, HITS
782- 2817 MONTHLY REPORT
,. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
NUMBER OF PERMITS I,SSUED
I. Single Pamily D~elllngs
2. Duplexes/Double Bungalow
Multiple Dwellings
4. Residential Additions
$. Residential Repalr/Malnt.
Residential New Garages
?. New Con~ner¢ial/lnst. Const;'
8. New Indus:rlal Construction
9. Co~m/Inst./Ind. AddnsjRemodels
10. Comm./inst./Ind. Repalr/Malnt.
11. S~gns -Permanent
12. Sprinklers
t3. Oemolltlons
14. Retalnlnq Walls
15. Fences
16. Others
Permits with two or more classes
TOTAL
Heating Perm)ts
Plumbing Permits
Sewer Permits
Water Permits
TOTAL
SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER THIS YEAR LAST YEAR
1999 1999 TO DATE TO hATE'
-I
1 0 13 8
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 l
2 2 ~8
12) ~6 81~ 450
1 8 21 ~7
o/o 1/o o/o 1/o
0 o 2
0/Z/0 i 0/0/0 20/3/0 61tlZ
t/0/o , ) 1/o/o 12/8/1
Z) 1 ., 27 l0
1 0 17
1 0
0 ~ o 5 0
· .-o I -6 -16
147 I. 114 1,015. 61:~
28 I 14 200 170
4 ) 1 21 7
1 I ~ 4~ 7~
~ 'l ~2 498 446
ESTIMATED VALUATIONS OF PERMITS ISSUED
Single Family Dwellings
Duplexes/Obi.Bungalow, NEW
New Multiple Dwellings
Residential Additions
Residentlal Malnt./Repalr
Residential New Garages
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
New Commerclal/lnst. Const.
New Industrial Construction
Cormm./Inst/Ind. Addltlons/Remod.
Cormm./Inst/Ind. Malnt./Repalrs
TOTAL COMM./INST./IN0.
Signs - Permanent
5Orlnklers
Retalnlng Walls
Demolitions
Fences -
Others .
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL VALUATIONS
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
12t831t209
6,870
1.6OO
?,4~0
17,750
33,670
13,649,635
1,000
1,O0O
2,000
'4~666,20c
14,897,75~
. 139L~5
i o;o o
20,450
85.250
1.6q0
397r115
21rO95t605
6,972,391
35,009
'tq4.85~
33.500
47.877
0
q. O00
480t241
12~69,845
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
OCTOBER 15, 1999
HONORABLE MAYOR GARY L. PETERSON
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS F/~7~-
KENNETH R. ANDERSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO
1999 MUNICIPAL LICENSE AND PERMIT FEE SURVEY.
Attached please find a page copied from the Municipal License and Permit Fee Survey of 1999
of the Building Permit fees based on single family residential dwellings valued at $100,000.
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Municipal License and Permit Fee Survey of
1999 will be available at the City Council work session of October 18, 1999 for your review.
If you have any additional questions or would like to review the survey it is available in our
office or please feel free to contact me at any time.
c: file
h:\99fecsched
BUILDING
CITIES 0 - 2,500
Excels[or 887.25
Spring Park 887.25
CITIES 2,500 - 10,000
Arden Hills 993.75
Belle Plaine 639.50
Circle Pines 783.75
Dayton 11 total perm[ts
Deephaven 993.75 + state surcharge and plan
check 1,689.69
Falcon Heights 993.75
Farmington uniform bui[din9 code
Forest Lake 993.75
Grant contracted out
Hugo 887.25
Jordan 639.50
Lake Elmo 887.25
Lauderdale 942.50
Little Canada 1,104.25 (includes 110.50 for
electrical)
Mahtomedi 887
Mound 887.25
New Prague 508
Newport 699.75
NoAh Oaks 887.25
Oak Grove 887.25
Oak Park Heights 993.75
Orono 887.25
Osseo 639.50
Rockford set by '97 bldg code
Shorewood 887.25
Spring Lake Park 887.25
St. Anthony 1,987.25/includes SAC and
surcharges
St. Francis 887.25 + 50 S.C.
St. Paul Park 887.25 25/water conn 60/wat meter
25/sewr 10/driv
Victoria 887,25
Waconia city has detail
Watertown 895
Wayzata 887.25
CITIES i0,000 - 20,000
Andover 887.25 + tax 50
Anoka 895
Chanhassen 887.25
Chaska 993.75
Columbia Heights 933.75
Hastings 887.25
Lino Lakes permit fee 3a table
Mendota Heights 639.50
Prior Lake 887.25
Ramsay 887
Robbinsdale 993.75
26
Savage
Shakopee
Stillwater
Vadnais Heights
West St. Paul
Table lA 1997. UBC 783.75
887.25
993.75
895/permit 50/state surcharge
5/contractor lic var
887.25
887.25
CITIES OVER 20,000
Apple Valley 983.75
Blaine 993.75
Bloomington 887.25
Brooklyn Center 1,689.69
Brooklyn Park 993.75
Burnsville 993.75
Coon Rapids 867.25 + 50=937.25
Cottage Grove 895
Crystal 887.25
Edina 887.25
Fridley 887.25 + 100 fire surcharge and
state surcharge
Golden Valley 867.25
Inver Grove Hgts. 887.25
Lakeville city has detail
Maple Grove 993.75
Maplewood 993.75 electJ55.50
Minneapolis 887.25
Minnetonka 887.25
New Brighton 2,696.75 total
New Hope 892.50
Oakdale 895
Richfield 2,568.96 (wi1 SAC charge 1,050)
Roseville 892.50
Shoreview 887.25
South St. Paul 892.50
St. Paul 887.25
White Bear Lake 887.25
Woodbury 699.75
The following fees were computed for a new
single family residential dwelling valued at
$100,000 in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Letter No. 65. It has 20 plumbing
fixture units; 200 amp service with 14-0 to 30
amp circuits and 1-31 to 100 amp circuits; and a
100,000 BTU furnace and air conditioning.
Source:
Municipal License & Permit Fee Survey '99
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DEADLINES
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meetinq Date
Application
Deadline
Public Hearing Notice
Mailinq Date
Deliver
Aqenda
January 5, 1999
February 2, 1999
March 2, 1999
April 6, 1999
May 4, 1999
*June 1, 1999
*July 6, 1999
August 3, 1999
*September 7, 1999
October 5, 1999
November 2, 1999
December 7, 1999
January 4, 2000
December 11, 1999
January 15, 1999
February 12, 1999
March 19, 1999
April 16, 1999
May 14, 1999
June 18, 1999
July 16, 1999
August 13, 1999
September 17, 1999
October 15, 1999
November 19, 1999
December 10, 1999
December 18
January 22
February 19
March 20
April 23
May 21
June 25
July 23
August 20
September 24
October 22
November 24
December 21
December 29
January 29
February 26
April 2
April 30
May 28
July 2
July 30
August 27
October 1
October 29
December 3
December 29
*Subject to change.
Lotsplit
ReZonin9
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
PLANNING AND ZONING FEE SCHEDULE
$150- Residential
8250- Commercial/Industrial
8500
8100
8 20 Filing Fee
75- Residential
100- Commericalllndustrial
Appeal
Site Plan Review 8150
P.U.D.
Plat
R.L.S.
8250
8250
8100
1999 LICENSE FEES
Effective January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.
CATEGORY FEES ARTICLE SECTION
Amusement Centers/Arcades*
($5,000 BondlH O0 Inv. Fee)(PD)
Auto Recycling Dealer/Yard
-5~1000 Bond) PD,FD, Z
$500 IV
Beer Sales (PD, BI, FI)
On Sale* ($150 Inv. Fee 1st time appl.)
Off Sale* ($150 Inv. Fee 1st time appl.)
"Club" Beer ($150 Inv. Fee 1st time appl.)
Single Event Club Beer (per day basis)
($500 Appl. Fee & $500 Clean-up deposit)
$350
$100
$100
$100
Carnivals ($500 deposit & insurance) (PO)
$50/day
$50
Christmas Tree Sales (FI) (P&Z Comm)
($200 Clean-up Deposit)
Cigarettes/Tobacco Sales (S&H)
$100
Contractors (Bond and Insurance)
General (if not licensed by State)
Blacktop
Excavator
Masonry/Concrete
Moving
Demolition
Plaster/Stucco
Heating/Cooling
Gas Piping
Plumbing
Sign Installation
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
S50
$50
Courtesy Benches (Insurance)(Eng. Dept.)
Games Of Skill {PD)
Kennels, Commercial {PD)
Plus, per cage
$251each
$50
$10
V
¥
II
VI
IV
VI
2
2
8
6
2
7
6
4
9
CATEGORY
Liquor Sales (PD, FI, BI)
"Club Liquor" (Bond & Insurance)
On Sale Liquor (Bond & Insurance)
(inv. Fee $500-$10,000)
On Sale Limited Liquor (Same as On Sale)
On Sale Wine (inv. Fee $250-$2000)
Sunday Liquor Sales
Sunday Wine Sales
Sunday Club Sales
Massage Therapist Business (PD,ZA)
($250 investigation Fee)
; Massage Therapy, Individual (PD, ZA)
($250 Investigation Fee)
Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Stations (Fi)
First Metering Device
Each Add'l. Metering Device
L.P. Gas Per Metering Device
Motor Vehicle Rental/Leasing (ZA)
A. New Application
B. Renewal Application
Motor Vehicle Sales (New & Used) (PD)
Multiple Dwellings (FI,BI)
First 3-4 Units
Each Additional Unit Over 4
Re-Inspection Fee for Code Compliance
Pawnbroker ($5,000 Bondl$100 Inv. Fee) (PD)
Pet Shop* (PD)
Pool/Billiard Hall ($100 Inv. Fee) (PD)
Popcorn, Candy, Food Catering Vehicles (PD)
(Insurance- Public & Vehicle Liability)
Precious Metal Dealers ($5,000 Bond)(PD)
($100 Investigation Fee)
New Applicant
Renewal
FEES
$300
$2,000
$200
$200
$200
$500
$100
$50
$10
$50
$75
$50
$200
$ 50
$ 5
$ 70
$12,000
$50
$100
$50
$300
$200
ARTICLE
V
V
II
VI
II
VI
II
VI
VI
Page
SECTION
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
12
12
4
7
8
5
9
2
6
2
CATEGORY
Rental Housing Licenses
Single Family & Duplex (Per Unit Basis)
Re-Inspection Fee
Secondhand Merchant Business (~5000 Bond)
(Investigation Fee $100) (PD, FI, BI)
Exhibition/Convention/Shows/Expositions ($5,000 Bond)
First Day
Each Additional Day
Sexually Oriented/Adult Business (PD,FI,ZA,AC)
(investigation Fee $500-$10,000)
Taxicab Driver (PD)
Taxicab Vehicle (PD)
Transient Merchant/Peddlers (PD) A. Itinerant Hawker/Peddler
B. Transient Merchant
Tree Removal & Treatment (ins.) {PWD)
FEES ARTICLE
VI
$15
$50
~100 II
II
$50
$10
Page 3
SECTION
6
4
4
$10,000 V 6
t25 VI 3
t75 VI 3
II 3
$501day; ~; 1001mo.; $500/yr.
$501day; ~ 100/mo.; $500/yr.
$50 VI 10
LATE PENALTY ON ALL ANNUALLY RENEWABLE EEES
1-15 DAYS LATE
16-30 DAYS LATE
OVER 30 DAYS LATE
25% PENALTY OVER ORIGINAL FEE
50% PENALTY OVER ORIGINAL FEE
LEGAL PROCEDURES BEGUN.
PD
BI
S&H
ZA
DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVAL OF LICENSE
Police Department
Building Inspector
Safety and Health Inspector
Zoning Authority
FI
PWD
CF
AC
Fire Department
Public Works Dpt
City Forestor
Anoka County
All New Licenses Must Have Zoninq Authority Approval.
~L LETTER
Meeting of: September 13, 1999
~GENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT.: ~ CITY MANAGER
NO: ~ License Department APPROVAL
ITEM: 2000 Business License Fees BY: Kathryn Pepin /~ BY:
NO: ~'~ ' ~ DATE: AU~USC 25. 1999
BACKGROUND
Attached is the proposed business license fees for the 2000 license year and a resolution for the same.
These fees are reviewed and discussed by the License Review Committee. They considered the fees charged by other
cities, the increased costs of staff time involved in review, processing, records checks, etc.
ANALYSISIRECOMMENDATION
All fees will remain the same for the year 2000 with the exception of the fee for Auto Recycling Dealer/Yard and Games of
Skill. The License Review Committee recommends the increase from t2SO to ~500 for Auto Recycling Dealers/Yards at
this time as there are currently none in existence in the city and the cost for processing of such a license and monitoring of
the site would exceed the current $250 fee. The other increase proposed for Games of Skill is due to recent legislative
action which states: "A home rule charter or statutory city may impose by ordinance a license fee on amusement machines
of no more than the demonstrated and verifiable actual cost of issuing the license or $15 per location plus ~ 15 per
machine". Our current fee of $50 per machine has been in effect for many years. The License Review Committee
discussed the issue and concurred that the license fee of $15 per location plus t 15 per machine may cover the cost of
processing such applications and issuing such licenses at this time, however, the process should be monitored for
determination of fees for the year 2001 and consecutive years.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 99- o as there are ample copies available tothe public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Resolution//99- being a Resolution adopting the 2000 Business License Fee Schedule as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION:
attachments:
Resolution 99-'~
Fee schedule
Revised Statute
RESOLUTION NO. 99-~
ADOPTING 2000 BUSINESS LICENSE FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS:
Ordinance No. 853, City Cede of 1977, pertaining to commercial licensing
regulations provides for the establishing of annual license fees; and
WHEREAS:
The City has participated in a survey of metropolitan municipalities regarding
business license fees charged by other communities; and
WHEREAS:
The City is attempting to maintain business license fees which are comparable
to ether communities; and
WHEREAS: The City annually reviews its business license fee schedule;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached proposed license fee schedule be adopted and effective
January 1, 2000.
Passed this
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
day of ,1999.
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Jo-Anne Student, Council Secretary
2000 BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
Effective January 1,2000 throuoh December 31. 2000.
CATEGORY
FEES
. Amusement Centers/Arcades
($5,000 Bondl$100 Inv. Fee)(PD)
$5OO
$500
Auto Recycling Dealer/Yard
($1000 Bond) PD,FD, ZA
Beer Sales {PD, BI, FI)
On Bale ($150 Inv. Fee 1st time appl.)
Off Bale ($150 Inv. Fee 1st time appl.)
"Club" Beer ($150 Inv. Fee 1st time appl.)
Single Event Club Beer (per day basis)
($500 AppL Fee & $500 Clean-up deposit)
$350
$100
$100
$100
Carnivals (8500 deposit & insurance) (PD)
8501day
850
Christmas Tree Sales (FI) (P&Z Comm)
(8200 Clean*up Deposit)
Cigarettes/Tobacco Sales (S&H)
8100
Contractors (Bond and Insurance)
General (if not licensed by State)
Blacktop
Excavator
M asonrylConcrete
Moving
Demolition
Plaster/Stucco
Heating/Cooling
Gas Piping
Plumbing
Sign Installation
850
850
850
$50
850
$50
$5O
$5O
$5O
$5O
850
$5O
Courtesy Benches (Insurance)(Eng. Dept.)
$251each
Games Of Skill (PD)
$151location
Plus $151machine
ARTICLE
IV
II
V
V
II
VI
IV
VI
SECTION
2
2
6
4
Kennels, Commercial (PD) 850
Plus, per cage $10
CATEGORY
Liquor Sales (PD, FI, BI)
"Club Liquor" (Bond & insurance)
On Sale Liquor (Bond & Insurance)
(Inv. Fee $500-$10,000)
On Sale Limited Liquor (Same as On Sale)
On Sale Wine (Inv. Fee $250-$2000)
Sunday Liquor Sales
Sunday Wine Sales
Sunday Club Sales
Massage Therapist Business (PD,ZA)
{t250 investigation Fee)
Massage Therapy, Individual (PD, ZA)
($250 Investigation Fee)
Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Stations (FI)
First Meterin9 Device
Each Add'l. Metering Device
LP. Gas Per Metering Device
Motor Vehicle Rental/Leasing (ZA)
A. New Application
B. Renewal Application
Motor Vehicle Sales (New & Used) (PD)
Multiple Dwellings (FI,BI)
First 3-4 Units
Each Additional Unit Over 4
Re-inspection Fee for Code Compliance
Pawnbroker ($5,000 Bondl$100 Inv. Fee) (PD)
Pet Shop (PD)(Humane Officer)
Pool/Billiard Hall ($100 Inv. Fee) (PD)
Popcorn, Candy, Food Catering Vehicles (PD)
(Insurance- Public & Vehicle Liability)
Precious Metal Dealers ($5,000 Bond)(PD)
($100 Investigation Fee)
New Applicant
Renewal
FEES
$30O
$6,300
$5,400
t2,000
$200
9200
9200
$500
9100
950
910
$50
t75
$50
$200
9 50
9 5
$ 7O
$12,000
950
9100
$50
$300
$200
ARTICLE
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
11
VI
11
VI
II
Vi
IV
VI
VI
Page 2
SECTION
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
12
12
8
4
CATEGORY
Rental Housing Licenses
Single Family & Duplex (Per Unit Basis)
Re-Inspection Fee
Secondhand Merchant Business ($5,000 Bond)
(Investigation Fee 1100) (PD, FI, BI)
ExhibitionlConventionlShowslExpositions (85,000 Bond)
First Day
Each Additional Day
Sexually Oriented/Adult Business (PD,FI,ZA,AC)
(Investigation Fee 8500-110,000)
Taxicab Driver (PD)
Taxicab Vehicle (PD)
Transient Merchant/Peddlers (PD) A. Itinerant Hawker/Peddler
B. Transient Merchant
Tree Removal & Treatment (Ins.) (PWD)
FEES ARTICLE
VI
f15
I50
8100 II
Il
850
110
Page 3
SECTION
8
4
4
I10,000 V 6
I25 VI 3
I75 VI 3
II 3
8501day; 8 lOOlmo.; 85001yr.
8501day; 8 lO01mo.; 85001yr.
I50 VI 10
LATE PENALTY ON ALL ANNUALLY RENEWABLE FEES
1-15 DAYS LATE
16-30 DAYS LATE
OVER 30 DAYS LATE
25% PENALTY OVER ORIGINAL FEE
50% PENALTY OVER ORIGINAL FEE
LEGAL PROCEDURES BEGUN.
PD
BI
S&H
ZA
DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVAL OF LICENSE
Police Department
Building Inspector
Safety and Health Inspector
Zoning Administrator
FI
PWD
CF
AC
Fire Department
Public Works Dpt
City Forestor
Anoka County
All New Licenses Must Have Zoninq Administrator's Approval.
To: Ca~y Pepin
From:
Fax: 612-782-2857
Pages:, indudlng ~s cover sheet
Andrea B. $~.arns
League of Minnesota Cities
(65I) 28t-~258
Fax: (651)215-4116
Date: July 27. 1999
Comments:
Amusement machines license fees law (Chapter 179)
Please cbn't hesitate to afll ~ you r~quire mnyi~ing ~urther.
TRAN S H ISSION
KEY: ~=:lck'--'- - old language to be removed ~
underscored - new language to be added
NOTE: ~you can-o~ see any dlffere~ce in Ge k~y above, you need ~ change ~c ~$p~v o~s~ckcn
Author~and St.tus · ~
S.F No. 1329, 2nd Engro~sment: 81st Legislative Session (1999-2000) Posted on 5/13199
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to cities; limiting license fees on co~n and
1.3 currency activated amusement machines; proposing
1.4 coding for new law in Hin~esota Sta:u:eso oha~ter 449.
1.5 BE IT ENACT£D BY THE L£SISLATUR~ OF THE STATE OF MI,~N£SOTA:
1.6 Sec:ion 1. [449.20] [LIMITED LIC~NS£ FEES ON AMUS~NT
1.~ MACHINES.]
1.8 A home rule charter or statutory city may impose by
1.9 ordinance a license fee o~ amusement mamhine= of no more than
1.10
1.11
the Oemons:rated and verifiable ac:ual cost of issuln~ :he
license or $15 Der locat:on plus S15 pc: machine.
1 of ! 7116/90 ! 1:26
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: November 9, 1998
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
NO: Community Development APPROVAL
ITEM: First Reading Ordinance 1378 Adopting the BY: Mel Collova BY:
Minnesota State Building Code DATE: October 5, 1998
NO:
Issue Statement: Adoption of the latest Minnesota State Building Code including the 1997 Uniform Building
Code with State Amendments.
Background: This Municipality is required to enforce this Code by Minnesota Statute 16B.62. and Minnesota
rule 1300 2 100 as modified by chapter 1305. The latest edition of the Code has the exiting provisions completely
rewritten. The previous Code protected buildings and the new Code provides for timely exiting of occupants. It is
therefore less restrictive in the exiting chapter which has been totally rewritten. This major change will reduce the
cost of construction. Staff requests the adoption of Table I-A, the fee table. The present fee of $349.75 taken
from the 1994 Code for a $25,000 project would be increased to $391.25 an increase of just $41.50. On a large
project of $l,000,000 the building permit and plan review fee would increase from $8,270.21 to $9,254.44 an
increase of $534.23 The average residential permit with a building valuation of $10,000 would generate a fee of
$271 88 instead of the $243.38 current fee. An increase of just $38.50. The minimum fee for all permits including
mechanical and plumbing permits will be increased to meet the current minimum building permit fee of $35.00. It
should be remembered the fees should not increase again until the 2000 Code is adopted in 2001. As you will
remember earlier the Council approved the increase from the 1988 to the 1994 Code and when skipping periodic
upgrades, the increase does become considerable. It would be preferable to adopt the smaller, more frequent
increase
Alternative 1:
Adopt the new Minnesota State Building Code without the fee increase (see attached current Table I-A).
Alternative 2:
Adopt the New Minnesota State Building Code with the fees as set forth in the revised Table I-A (attached).
Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance and revised fee schedule Table 1
Recommended Motion:
Move to Waive the Reading of Ordinance 1378, There being Ample Copies Available to the Public.
Recommended Motion: Move to Establish November 23, 1998, at Approximately 7:00 PM as the Second
Reading of Ordinance 1378, Adopting the Minnesota State Building Code Including Table 1-A.
Alternative Motion: Move to Establish November 23, 1998, at Approximately 7:00 PM as the Second Reading
of Ordinance 1378, Adopting the Minnesota State Building Code excluding Table 1-A.
)UNCIL ACTION:
Subd. 9. Plumber's apprentice. A "plumber's
apprentice" is any person, other than a journeyman or master
plumber, who, as a principal.occupation, is engaged in working
as an employee of a plumbing contracto~.~n~e~ ~he immediate and
personal supervision of either a master or journeyman plumber or
plumbing contractor in learning and assisti~g3~n the
installation of plumbing.
326.37 PLUMBERS: ~U~ERVISION BY STATE CO~4ISSION[~ OF
HEALT[t; RU~.R~; VIOLATION; P~ALTY.
Subdivision 1. The state commissioner of health may, by
rule, prescribe minimum standards which shall be uniform, and
which standards shall thereafter be effective for all new
plumbing installations, including additions, extensions,
alterations, and replacements connected with any water or sewage
disposal system owned or operated by or for any municipality,
institution, factory, office building, hotel, apartment
building, or any other place of business regardless of location
or the population of the city or town in which located.
Violation of the rules shall be a misdemeanor.
The commissioner shall administer the provisions of
sections 326.37 to 326.45 and for such purposes may employ
plumbing inspectors and other assistants.
Subd. 2. Standards for capacity. By January i, 1993,
all new floor-mounted water closets in areas under jurisdiction
of the state plumbing code may not have a flush volume of more
than 1.6 gallons. The water closets must meet the standards of
the commissioner and the American National Standards Institute.
HIST: (5887-19) 1933 c 349 s 1; 1937 c 370 s i; 1973 c 123 art
5 s 7; 1975 c 136 s 66; 1977 c 305 s 45; 1990 c 597 s 57
326.371 BAN ON LEAD IN PLUMBING.
Lead pipe, solders and flux containing more than 0.2
percent lead, and pipes and pipe fittings containing more than
eight percent lead shall not be used in any plumbing
installation which conveys a potable water supply. A Minnesota
seller of lead solder, except for a se~ler whose primary
business is contracting in plumbing, h~ating, and air
conditioning, shall not sell any solder containing 0.2 percent
lead unless the seller displays a sign which states,
"Contains Lead
Minnesota law prohibits the use of this solder in any
plumbing installation which is connected to a potable water
supply."
HIST: 1985 c 279 s 2; 1988 c 689 art 2 s 232
326.38 LOCAL REGULATIONS.
Any city having a system of waterworks or sewerage, or any
town in which reside over 5,000 people exclusive of any
statutory cities located therein, may, by ordinance, adopt local
regulations providing for plumbing permits, bonds, approval of
plans, and inspections of plumbing, which regulations are not in
conflict with the plumbing standards on the same subject
prescribed by the state commissioner of health. No city Or such
town shall prohibit plumbers licensed by the state commissioner
of health from engaging in or working at the business, except
cities and statutory cities which, prior to April 21, 1933, by
ordinance required the licensing of plumbers. Any city by
ordinance may prescribe regulations, reasonable standards, and
inspections and grant permits to any person, firm, or
corporation engaged in the business of installing water
softeners, who is not licensed as a master plumber or journeyman
plumber by the state commissioner of health, to connect water
softening and water filtering equipment to private residence
water distribution systems, where provision has been previously
made therefor and openings left for that purpose or by use of
cold water connections to a domestic water heater; where it is
not necessary to rearrange, make any extension or alteration of,
or addition to any pipe, fixture or plumbing connected with the
water system except to connect the water softener, and provided
the connections so made comply with minimum standards prescribed
by the state commissioner of health.
HIST: (5887-20) 1933 c 349 s 2; 1937 c 370 s 2; 1941 c 367 s
l; 1953 c 166 s 1; 1957 c 921 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1977 c
305 s 45
326.39 VIOLATIONS ~O BE ~PORTED TO STATE t-~I~ISSION~R
OF ~EALTE.
Such local authority as may be designated by any such
ordinance for the issuance of such plumbing permits and approval
of such plans shall report to the state commissioner of health
persistent or willful violation of the same and any incompetence
of a licensed plumber observed by the local authority.
HIST: (5887-21) 1933 c 349 s 3; 1977 c 305 s 45
326.40 LICENSING, ~OND AND INSURANCE.
Subdivision 1. Plumbers must be licensed in certain
cities; master and journeyman plumbers; plumbing on one's own
premises; rules for examination. In any city now or hereafter
having 5,000 or more population, according to the last federal
census, and having a system Of waterworks or sewerage, no
person, firm, or corporation shall engage in Or work at the
business of a master plumber or journeyman plumber unless
licensed to do so by the state commissioner of health. A master
plumber may also work as a journeyman plumber. Anyone not so
licensed may do plumbing work which complies with the provisions
of the minimum standard prescribed by the state commissioner of
health on premises or that part of premises owned and actually
occupied by the worker as a residence, unless otherwise
forbidden to do so by a local ordinance.
In any such city no person, firm, or corporation shall
engage in the business Of installing plumbing nor install
plumbing in connection with the dealing in and selling of
193
1991UNIFORMMECHANICALCODE
301-302
Chapter 3
PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
-- Permits
Sec. 3Ol. (a) Permits Required. Except as permitted in Subsection (b) of this
section, no mechanical system regulated by this code shall be installed, altered,
repaired, replaced or remodeled unless a separate mechanical permit for each
separate building or structure has first been obtained from the building official.
(b) Exempt Work. A mechanic, al permit shall not be required for the following:
1. A portable heating appliance, portable ventilating equipment, portable
cooling unit or portable evaporative cooler.
2. A closed system of steam, hot or chilled water piping within heating or
cooling equipment regulated by this code.
3. Replacement of any component part or assembly of an appliance which
does not alter its original approval and complies with other applicable
requirements of this code.
, ,/ 4. Refrigerating equipment which is part of the equipment for which a permit
has been issued pursuant to the requirements of this code.
5. A unit refrigerating system.
Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to
.~'~ grant authorization for work to be done in violation of the provisions of this code
or other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Appl cat on for Permit
Sec. 302. (a) Application. To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file an
application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the code enforcement
agency for that purpose. Every such application shall:
I. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which
application is made.
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal
description, street address or similar description that will readily identify
and definitely locate the proposed building or work.
3. indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended.
4. Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computauons and specifications and
other data as required in Subsection (b) of this section.
5. Be signed by the applicant or an authorized agent of the applicant.
6. Give such other data and information as may he required by the building
~'~ ~ ' ' L, i~ official.
'~, ,-~ ~r. I .__ (b) Plans and Sp~ifications. Plans engmeenng calculahons, &agrams and
~:&..:_ ] ~ /~,?[ other data shall be subrmttad tn one or more sets with each apphcatmn for a
~..;~?.,,1,'~_~: per mi~,~n~$~ich pians arc not prepared by an architect or engineer, the building
~;~:57fl- ' ~;~*i :~,:t officialr-~[~.requii~ny al~l~li,~t s~fmitfing suchplanS0r'other datato demon'
: "'":~' ~ strate tl~t state !aw does not ~:~quire that the plans be ~repared by an architect or
~ engineer. The building official may require plans, computations and specifica-
9
104.2.5 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
106.2
104.2.5 Occupancy violations. Whenever any building or
structure or equipment therein regulated by this code is being used
contrary to the provisions of this code, the building official may
order such use discontinued and the structure, or portion thereof,
vacated by notice served on any person causing such use to be con-
tinued. Such person shall discontinue the use within the time pre-
scribed by the building official after receipt of such notice to make
the structure, or portion thereof, comply with the requirements of
this code.
104.2.6 Liability. The building official charged with the en-
forcement of this code, acting in good faith and without malice in
the discharge of the duties required by this code or other pertinent
law or ordinance shall not thereby be rendered pemonally liable
for damages that may accrue to pemons or property as a result of an
act or by reason of an act or omission in the discharge of such du-
ties. A suit brought against the building official or employee be-
cause of such act or omission performed by the building official or
employee in the enforcement of any provision of such codes or
other pertinent laws or ordinances implemented through the en-
forcement of this code or enforced by the code enforcement
agency shall be defended by this jurisdiction until final termina-
tion of such proceedings, and any judgment resulting therefrom
shall be assumed by this jurisdiction.
This code shall not be construed to relieve from or lessen the re-
sponsibility of any person owning, operating or controlling any
building or structure for any damages to persons or property
caused by defects, nor shall the code enforcement agency or its
parent jurisdiction be held as assuming any such liability by rea-
son of the inspections authorized by this code or any permits or
certificates issued under this code.
104.2.7 Modifications. When there are practical difficulties in-
volved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building of-
ficial may grant modifications for individual cases. The building
official shall first find that a special individual reason makes the
strict letter of this code impractical and that the modification is in
conformance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such
modification does not lessen any fire-protection requirements or
any degree of structural integrity. The details of any action grant-
ing modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the
code enforcement agency.
104.2.8 Alternate materials, alternate design and methods of
construction. The provisions of this code are not intended to pre-
vent the use of any material, alternate design or method of
construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided
any alternate has been approved and its use authorized by the
building official.
The building official may approve any such alternate, provided
the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory
and complies with the provisions of this code and that the material,
method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the
equivalent of that proscribed in this code in suitability, strength,
effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation.
The building official shall require that sufficient evidence or
proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may be made
regarding its use. The details of any action granting approval of aa
alternate shall be recorded and entered in the files of the code en-
forcement agency,
104.2.9 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of com-
pliance with any of the provisions of this code or evidence that any
material or construction does not conform to the requirements of
this code, the building official may require tests as proof of com-
pliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction.
1-2
Test methods shall be as specified by this code or by other rec-
ognized test standards. If there are no recognized and accepted test
methods for the proposed alternate, the building official shall de-
te, rmine test procedures.
All tests shall be made by an approved agency. Reports of such
tests shall be retained by the building official for the period m~
quired for the retention of public records.
104.2.10 Cooperation of other officials and officers. The
building official may request, and shall receive, the assistance and
cooperation of other officials of this jurisdiction so far as is re
quired in the discharge of the duties required by this code or other
pertinent law or ordinance.
SECTION 105 ~ BOARD OF APPEALS
105.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of ordem, de-
cisions or determinations made by the building official relative to
the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is
hereby created a board of appeals consisting of members who are
qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining
to building construction and who are not employees of the juris-
diction. The building official shall be an ex officio member of and
shall act as secretary to said board but shall have no vote on any
matter before the board. The board of appeals shall be appointed
by the governing body and shall hold office at its pleasure. The
board shall adopt roles of procedure for conducting its business,
and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appel-
lant with a duplicate copy to the building official.
105.2 Limitations of Authority. The board of appeals shall
have no anthority relative to interpretation of the administrative ('~}
provisions of this code nor shall the board be empowered to waive .
requirements of this code.
SECTION 106 -- PERMITS
106.1 Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 106.2,
no building or strnctare regulated by this code shall be erected,
constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, re-
moved, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each
building or structure has first been obtained from the building offi-
cial.
106.2 Work Exempt from Permit. A building permit shall not
be required for the folio?lng:
1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and
storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, provided the floor
area does not exceed 120 square feet (11.15 m2).
2 Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high.
3. Oil derricks.
4. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet
9 inches (1753 mm) high.
5. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height
measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, un-
less supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, 1I or III-A liq-
uids.
6. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity
does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L) and the ratio of height to
diameter or width does not exceed 2:1.
7. Platforms, walks and driveways not more than 30 inches
(762 mm) above grade and not over any basement or story below.
8. Painting, papering and similar finish work.
1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 106.2
106.4.1
9. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets
and scenery.
10. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R,
Division 3, and Group U Occupancies when projecting not more
than 54 inches (1372 mm).
11. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R, Di-
vision 3 Occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the
adjacent grade and if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons
(18 927 L).
Unless otherwise exempted, separate plumbing, electrical and
mechanical permits will be required for the above-exempted
items.
Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not
be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any
manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws
or ordinances of this jurisdiction.
106.3 Application for Permit.
106.3.1 Application. To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first
file an application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the
code enforcement agency for that purpose. Every such application
shall:
1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit
for which application is made.
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done
by legal description, street address or similar description that will
readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building or
work.
3. Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is
intended.
4. Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computations and
specifications and other data as required in Section 106.3.2.
5. State the valuation of any new building or structure or any
addition, remodeling or alteration to an existing building.
6. Be signed by the applicant, or the applicant's authorized
agent.
7. Give such other data and information as may be required by
the building official.
106.3.2 Submittal documents. Plans, specifications, engineer-
ing calculations, diagrams~ soil investigation reports, special in-
spection and structural observation programs and other data shall
constitute the submittal documents and shall be submitted in one
or more sets with each application for a permit. When such plans
are not prepared by an architect or engineer, the building official
may require the applicant submitting such plans or other data to
demonstrate that state law does not require that the plans be pre-
pared by a licensed architect or engineer. The building official
may require plans, computations and specifications to be prepared
and designed by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to
practice as such even if not required by state law.
EXCEPTION: The building official may waive the submission of
plans, calculations, construction inspection requirements and other
data if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that
viewing of plans is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.
106.3.3 Information on plans and specifications. Plans and
specifications shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or
cloth and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, na-
ture and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will
conform to the provisions of this code and all relevant laws, ordi-
nances, roles and regulations.
Plans for buildings of other than Group R, Division 3 and Group I
U Occupancies shall indicate how required structural and fire-
resistive integrity will be maintained where penetrations will be
made for electrical, mechanical, plumbing and communication
conduits, pipes and similar systems.
1063.4 Architect or engineer of record.
106.3}4.1 General. When it is required that documents be pre-
pared by an amhitect or engineer, the building official may require
the owner to engage and designate on the building permit applica-
tion an amhitect or engineer who shall act as the architect or engi-
neer of record. If the circumstances require, the owner may
designate a substitute architect or engineer of record who shall
perform all of the duties required of the original architect or engi-
neer of record. The building official shall be notified in writing by
the owner ff the architect or engineer of record is changed or is un-
able to continue to perform the duties.
The architect or engineer of record shall be responsible for re-
viewing and coordinating all submittal documents prepared by
others, including deferred submittal items, for compatibility with
the design of the building,
106.3.4.2 Deferred submittals. For the purposes nf this section,
deferred submittals are defined as those portions of the design that
are not submitted at the time of the application and that are to be
submitted to the building official within a specified period.
Deferral of any submittal items shall have prior approval of the
building official. The architect or engineer of record shall list the
deferred submittals on the plans and shall submit the deferred sub-
mittal documents for review by the building official.
Submittal documents for deferred submittal items shall be sub-
mitted to the architect or engineer of record who shall review them
and forward them to the building official with a notation indicat-
ing that the deferred submittal documents have been reviewed and
that they have been found to be in general conformance with the
design of the building. The deferred submittal items shall not be
installed until their design and submittal documents have been ap-
proved by the building official.
106.3.5 Inspection and observation program. When special
inspection is required by Section 1701, the architect or engineer of
record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted
to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the build-
ing permit. The inspection program shall designate the portions of
the work that require special inspection and the name or names of
the individuals or firms who are to perform the special inspec-
tions, and indicate the duties of the special inspectors.
The special inspector shall be employed by the owner, the engi-
neer or architect of record, or an agent of the owner, but not the
contractor or any other person responsible for the work.
When structural observation is required by Section 1702, the in-
spection program shall name the individuals or firms who are to
perform structural observation and describe the stages of
construction at which structural observation is to occur.
The inspection program shall include samples of inspection re-
pons and provide time limits for submission of reports.
106.4 Permits Issuance.
106.4.1 Issuance. The application, plans, specifications, com-
putations and other data filed by an applicant for a permit shall be
reviewed by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed by
other departments of this jurisdiction to verify compliance with
any applicable laws under their jurisdiction. If the building official
finds that the work described in an application for a permit and the
plans, specifications and other data filed therewith conform to the
requirements of this code and other pertinent laws and ordinances,
1-,3
106.4.1 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
107.6
and that the fees specified in Section 107 have been paid, the
building official shall issue a permit therefor to the applicant.
When the building official issues the permit where plans are re-
quired, the building official shall endorse in writing or stamp the
plans and specifications APPROVED. Such approved plans and
specifications shall not be changed, modified or altered without
authorizations from the building official, and all work regulated
by this code shall be done in accordance with the approved plans.
The building official may issue a permit for the construction of
part of a building or structure before the entire plans and specifica-
tions for the whole building or structure have been submitted or
approved, provided adequate information and detailed statements
have been filed complying with all pertinent requirements of this
code. The holder of a partial permit shall proceed without assur-
ance that the permit for the entire building or structure will be
granted.
106.4.2 Retention of plans. One set of approved plans, specifi-
cations and computations shall be retained by the building official
for a period of not less than 90 days from date of completion of the
work covered therein; and one set of approved plans and specifica-
tions shall be returned to the applicant, and said set shall be kept on
the site of the building or work at all times during which the work
authorized thereby is in progress.
106.4.3 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a permit
or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be
construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any
of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of thc juris-
diction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel
the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction
shall not be valid.
The issuance of a permit based on plans, specifications and oth-
er data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter re-
quiring the correction of errors in said plans, specifications and
other data, or from preventing building operations being carried
on thereunder when in violation of this code or of any other ordi-
nances of this jurisdiction.
106.4.4 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official
under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and
come null and void if the building or work authorized by such per-
mit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such
permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is sus-
pended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for
a period of 180 days. Before such work can be recommenced, a
new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the fee therefor
shall be one half the amount required for a new permit for such
work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the
original plans and specifications for such work, and provided fur-
ther that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one
year. In order to renew action on a permit after expiration, the per-
mittee shall pay a new full permit fee.
Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an
extension of the time within which work may commence under
that permit when the permittee is unable to commence work with-
in the time required by this section for good and satisfactory rea-
sons. The building official may extend the time for action by the
permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days on written request
by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond the control of
the permittee have prevented action from being taken. No permit
shall be extended more than once.
106.4.5 Suspension or revocation. The building official may,
in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions
of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of
1-4
incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or
regulation or any of the provisions of this code.
SECTION 107 -- FEES
107.1 General. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the
provisions of this section or shall be as set forth in the fee schedule
adopted by the jurisdiction.
107.2 Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be as set forth
in Table 1-A.
The determination of value or valuation under any of the provi-
sions of this code shall be made by the building official. The value
to be used in computing the building permit and building plan re-
view fees shall be the total value of all constmction work for which
the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing,
electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-
extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment.
107.3 Plan Review Fees. When submittal documents are re-
quired by Section 106.3.2, a plan review fee shall be paid at the
time of submitting the submittal documents for plan review. Said
plan review fee shall be 65 percent of the building permit fee as
shown in Table 1-A.
The plan review fees specified in this section are separate fees
from the permit fees specified in Section 107.2 and are in addition
to the permit fees.
When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to
require additional plan review or when the project involves de-
ferred submittal items as defined in Section 106.3.4.2, an addi-
tional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate shown in Table
107.4 Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no
permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application
shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for
review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by
the building official. The building official may extend the time for
action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days on m-
quest by the applicant showing that cimumstances beyond the
control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken.
No application shall be extended more than once. In order to re-
new action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall
resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee.
107.5 Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit.
107.5.1 Investigation. yqhenever any work for which a permit
is required by this code has been commenced without first obtain
lng said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a per-
mit may be issued for such work.
107.52 Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee,
shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently
issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the
permit fee required by this code. The minimum investigation fee
shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in Table 1-A. The
payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person
from compliance with all other provisions of. this code nor from
any penalty prescribed by law.
107.6 Fee Refunds. The building official may authorize refund-
ing of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or
collected.
The building official may authorize refunding of not mom than
80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done un-
der a permit issued in accordance with this code.
The building official may authorize refunding of not mom than
80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a
108.8 - 109.6 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
TABLE 1-A
reinspection fee in accordance with Table I -A or as set forth in the
fee schedule adopted by the jurisdiction,
In instances where reinspection fees have been assessed, no
additional inspection of the work will be performed until the re-
quired fees have been paid,
SECTION 109 -- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
109.1 Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall be
used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classi-
fication of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made
until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy
therefor as provided herein.
EXCEPTION: Group R. Division 3 and Group U Occupancies.
Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as
an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other
ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give au-
thority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordi-
nances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.
109.2 Change in Use. Changes in the character or use of a baild-
lng shall not be made except as specified in Section 3405 of this
code.
109.3 Certificate Issued. After the building official inspects the
building or structure and finds no violations of the provisions of
this code or other laws that are enforced by the code enforcement
agency, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy
that shall contain the following:
1. The building permit number.
2. The address of the building.
3. The name and address of the owner.
4. A description of that portion of the building for which the
certificate is issued.
5. A statement that the described portion of the building has
been inspected for compliance with the requirements of this code
for the group and division of occupancy and the use for which the
proposed occupancy is classified. :
6. The name of the building official,
109.4 Temporary Certificate. If the building official finds that
no substantial hazard will result from ocCuPancy of any building
or portion thereof before the same is completed, a temporary cer-
tificate of occupancy may be issued for the use of a portion or por-
tions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire
building or structure.
109.5 Posting. The certificate of occupancy shall be posted in a
conspicuous place on the premises and shall not be removed ex-
cept by the building official.
109.6 Revocation. The building official may, in writing, sus-
pend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the provi-
sions of this code whenever the certificate is issued in error, or on
the basis of incorrect information supplied, or when it is deter-
mined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in viola-
tion of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this
code.
TABLE 1-A---BUILDING PERMIT FEES
$1.00 to $500.00 $23.50
$501.00 to $2,000.00 $23.50 for the fi~st $500.00 plus $3.05 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $2.000.00
$2.001.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2.000.00 plus $14.00 for each additional $ L000.00, or fraction thereof, to
and including $25.000.00
$25.~01.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for each additional $1.000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $50,000,00
$50,001.00 to $100.000.00 $643.75 for the flint $50.000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional $1.000.00. or fraction thereof.
to and including $100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500.000.00 $993.75 for the fi~t $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for each additional $1.000.00, or fraction thereof.
to and including $500.000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000.000.00 $3,233.75 for the f~st $500,0003X) plus $4.75 for each additional $1,0~0.00. or fi'acdon
thereof, to [md including $1.000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000.000.00 plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours ....................................................................... $47.00 per houri
(mimmum charge~wo hour~)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305.8 .......................................................... $47.00 per hourt
3. Inspections for wl~ch no fee is specifically indicated ................... $47.00 per hour1
(minimum charge--one-half hour)
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or ~evisions to plans ............................................... $47.00 per bout1
(minimum charge--one-half hour)
5. For use of outside consultants for pIan checking and inspections, or both .................................................... Actual costs2
tOr the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of
the employees involved.
2Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs.
1-6
City of Columbia Heights
Public Works Department
Work Session Discussion Item:
Work session date: October 18, 1999
Prepared by: Kevin Hansen, Director of Public Works~~
Lauren McClanahan, Superintendent of Pfffflic Works
Item: Replacement of Unit # 167 - Ford Tractor/Backhoe
Background:
New tractor/backhoes are very versatile and can be outfitted with various attachments, such as 4 in 1 loader
buckets, sign post pounders, sweepers, snow plows, pavement breakers, tree grapples, etc. They also have
such features as 4-wheel drive and an extendable digging hoe. These features will improve crew efficiency
during snow removal and construction activities. Additional safety features will reduce the crew's exposure
to personal injury.
Staff recommends trading in the Ford tractor/backhoe # 167, moving JCB backhoe #104 into 2nd position
and purchasing a new 4-wheel drive tractor/backhoe with an extend-a-hoe from the State Contract that
expires June 30, 2000.
On October 11, 1999 Council authorized staffto utilize the bid selection process from the State of
Minnesota Purchasing Contract for the replacement of Unit #167. In 1999, $100,000 was budgeted to
replace Unit #167. The replacement cost is proposed to be split 50/50 between the Sewer and Water
Departments.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Staff has field tested and conducted operational and price comparisons of the following tractor/backhoes
available off the State Purchasing Contract:
Caterpillar
Model 426C IT
Tractor & Attachments: $72,218
Less Trade-in: ($-5,500)
Total: $66,718
Optional 2 through 5-year major component warranty: $1,300
Delivery 0 to 120 days
Total Cost: $68,018
Case
Model 590 Super L
Tractor & Attachments $70,067
Less Trade-in: ($-7,500)
Total: $62,567
Optional 2 through 5-year major component warranty: $1,676
Delivery 60 to 90 days
Total Cost: $64,243
Work Session Discussion Item:
Work session date: October 18, 1999
Item: Replacement of Unit # 167 - Ford Tractor/Backhoe
Page 2
John Deere
Model 410 E
Tractor & Attachments
Less Trade-in:
Total:
$81,271.00
($-7,000)
$74,271
Optional 2 through 5-year major component warranty: $1,830
Delivery 15 - 60 days
Total Cost: $76,101
All units have a one-year warranty, parts and labor, standard. Staff recommends the purchase of the
Caterpillar Model 426 C IT based on the machine's versatility, serviceability, availability of parts, high
resale value, and the supportive comments received from our mechanics and equipment operators. A
comparison of the two low bidder's feature equipment is attached, which further supports the acquisition of
the Caterpillar machine.
Requested Action:
Authorization for the replacement of Unit #167, tractor/backhoe with a Caterpillar Model 426 C IT at a cost
of $68,018 with trade-in, plus tax, from Ziegler Equipment of Minneapolis, with funding split equally
between the Sewer and Water Capital Equipment Replacement funds: 432-49450-5150 & 433-49430-5150.
Attachment: Feature Comparison Listing
FEATURE COMPARISON
(426C IT - 590 CASE SUPER L)
426C IT
· Hardened Pins & Bushings Used
Throughout Loader Linkage
· Gear Driven Water Pump
· Stamped Steel Tread Plate For Added
Safety Climbing On/Off Machine
· Permanently Sealed and Lubricated
King Pins And Drive Shaft U-Joints
· Front Axle Oscillation Joint
Permanently Sealed and Lubricated
· Steer Cylinder Rods 2" Diameter
· Tie Rods Can Be Easily Adjusted
· Tilt Steering Wheel
· Flat Glass In Cab Area
Rear Window Stows Above
Increasing Visibility
Load Sensing Hydraulics Provides
Full Hydraulic Power At Idle
· Hydraulic Hose Uses Four Layers Of
Steel Wire
· Arch Boom Design For Better
Clearance Over Obstacles And Trucks
· Fabricated Boom For Optimum
Strength And Balance
590 S L
· Nuts & Bolts Without Bushings Lead
To Premature Linkage Wear
· Belt Driven Water Pump (Stops If
Belt Fails)
· Sandpaper Used Which Easily Peels
Off, Leaving A Slippery Step
· Uses Grease Fittings Which Require
Daily Maintenance
· Grease Fittings Require Regular
Service to Both Sides of Front Axles
· Steer Cylinders 1.5" Diameter
· Cast Tie Rods Cannot Be Adjusted
· Tilt Steering Wheel Not Available
· Curved Glass Used which Distorts
View and is Costly to Replace
· Rear Window Slides Into Lower
Section Limiting Visibility
· Gear Pump Requires Full RPM to
Achieve Hydraulic Power, Wasting
Fuel and Horsepower
· Hydraulic Hose, One or Two Layer
Hose
· Straight Boom Design Results In Poor
Clearance
· Cast Boom Which Affects Balance
Due to Additional Weight
· Fabricated Boom Can Have Brackets · Cast Boom Cannot Be Welded
Welded To IT
Extendable Stick Has Adjustable;
Bolt-on Wear Pads That Can Be
Installed In The Field
Varia.ble Displacement Hydraulic
Pump Assures Full Power At Any
RPM
43 GPM Loader Hydraulics For Wide
Variety Of Attachments (Brooms,
Augers, Profilers)
IT Arrangement Allows Parallel Lift
(Forks, Attachments)
Extendable Stick Wear Pads Are Non-
Adjustable and Require Being Cut
Off, Resulting In Higher Costs
Gear Driven Hydraulic Pump Uses
Additional Horsepower and Increases
Operating Costs
· 31.5 GPM Hydraulics Limits
Attachments Because of Flow
· Tool Carrier Arrangement Not
Available, Nor Parallel Lift
City of Columbia Heights
Public Works Department
Work Session Discussion Item:
Work session date: October 18, 1999
Prepared by: Kevin Hanson, Director of Public Works~;~>~
Lauren McClanahan, Superintendent of Public Works
Item: Murzyn Hall - Installation of emergency generator connection and transfer switch
Background:
On June 21, 1999, Council reviewed the need to purchase a 80 to 100KW generator to operate
Murzyn Hall in the event of a community emergency or disaster. It was determined that the
estimated cost of purchasing a dedicated generator ($25,000) was unreasonably high. Council did
authorize staff to obtain bids for providing for a generator connection and necessary electrical
work. During a localized emergency situation, portable generators of adequate size may be
available from the National Guard or from rental companies.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Staff consulted with three electrical contractors requesting informal bid proposals for the
installation of a generator connection cabinet and manual transfer switch at Murzyn Hall to
provide for portable generator power to operate the facility. Staff has received two informal
quotes.
Heights Electric:
Aid Electric:
Not to exceed $5,880.00
Work shall be completed prior to December 31,1999.
Requested Action:
Authorization for the installation of a electrical generator connection and transfer switch at
Murzyn Hall.
City of Columbia Heights
Public Works Department
Work Session Discussion Item:
Work Session date: October 18, 1999
Prepared by: Kevin Hansen, Director of Public Works
Lauren McClanahan, Superintendent of Public Works
Item: Silver Lake Aeration System - Installation of electrical power and controls
Background:
This summer the Division of Natural Resom'ces (DNR) completed the long-awaited installation
of the Silver Lake aeration system. By agreement with the DNR, the City is responsible for
supplying power to the pump station manhole and all related maintenance and operational costs.
The system is planned to operate for 6-8 weeks during the winter months.
Analysis/Conclusions:
The pumping station is located near the shoreline on the east side of Silver [rake Beach. The
work would include burying the cable from the Parks Building to the underground pump station,
with the controls placed near the pump station, and a three phase to single phase convener for the
pump. Staff has receive 2 informal quotes to provide electrical connection to the Silver Lake
aeration system.
Heights Electric:
Aid Electric: $5,815.00
The installation of the underground wire must be completed before the ground freezes.
This project will be paid for from Fund #412-45200-5120.
Requested Action:
Authorization for the installation of electrical power and controls for the Silver Lake Aeration
System.
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 1999
AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPT.~ CITY MANAGER
NO: Community Developm~ffftf ' ~ APPROV~A,L~ ,~
ITEM: Resolution 99-83 /~BY: Jo eHollman~/~:~/~tido BY: ~.~/~
NO: Classification of Tax Forfeit Parcels [ DATE: October 13, 1999
Issue Statement: Two properties in Columbia Heights have recently been classified as tax forfeit. They are
4250 McLeod Street NE and 4236 Cleveland Street NE.
Background: The City has 60 days from September 16 to approve the classification and sale of forfeit parcels
within our jurisdiction. If disapproval of any parcel is not made within 60 days, it is deemed approved. If the
City desires to acquire either of the parcels we must file a written application with the Anoka County Board to
withhold the parcel from sale. The Board will then withhold the pamel from sale for six months.
Analysis: 4250 McLeod Street NE is zoned R-I, Single Family Residential and is roughly 11,520 square feet
(72' x 160'). There is a street easement along the south 30 feet of the property which will need to remain. The
front yard setback for the property is 25 feet and the rear yard setback is 30 feet which creates a building
envelope of 17 feet in width. Also, the lot has a relatively severe slope away from McLeod St. Because of the
topography and setback issues, the lot is essentially unbuildable. In 1994, the owners of the lot offered to donate
the property to the City. Letters of inquiry were sent out to adjacent property owners to determine their interest
in acquiring the land. At that time, none of the adjacent owners expressed any interest in the property.
4236 Cleveland Street NE is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential and is approximately 16,500 square
feet (110' x 150'). It has 150 feet of frontage along a portion of Cleveland Street that is platted as a public right-
of-way but the road has never been constructed. In order for it to become a buildable lot, Cleveland Street would
need to be opened in this area. If this were to occur, the parcel is actually large enough to divide into two
separate lots. At this point in time, it does not appear that the parcel has much potential for future use. However,
it may be advantageous for the City to own this property if the remaining portion of Cleveland Street is
developed in the future. Note that the City also currently owns 4201 Cleveland Street. The topography in the
area would make it difficult to develop this portion of Cleveland Street. One other option is that the property
could be divided and sold to the two adjacent property owners along Benjamin Street.
Recommendation: Considering that the future development of Cleveland Street is questionable and 4250
McLeod Street is essentially unbuildable, it does not appear that either of these two lots have potential for public
use. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the classification and sale of these two parcels.
Recommended Motion:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution 99-83, there being ample copies available to the public.
Move to adopt Resolution 99-83, being a resolution approving the classification and sale of forfeit parcels at
4250 McLeod Street NE and 4236 Cleveland Street NE.
Attachments:
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION 99-83
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA I~IEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING THE CLASSIFICATION AND SALE OF FORFEIT PARCELS AT 4250
McLEOD STREET NE AND 4236 CLEVELAND STREET NE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights has researched and
analyzed potential uses for 4250 McLeod Street NE and 4236 Cleveland Street NE; and,
WHEREAS, it has been determined that because of issues pertaining to topography of
the property and building setback requirements, 4250 McLeod Street NE is essentially
unbuildable and has no public use; and,
WHEREAS, it has been determined that 4236 Cleveland Street NE has no public use
and it does not currently have access to an improved public street; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that 4236 Cleveland Street NE would become a
buildable residential lot if the remaining portion of the platted public right-of-way for Cleveland
Street NE is constructed in the future; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that neither property has a public use and that
the City does not have a desire to acquire either parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Columbia Heights City Council
hereby approves the classification and sale of forfeit parcels at 4250 McLeod Street NE and 4236
Cleveland Street NE.
PASSED THIS
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
__ DAY OF ,1999 .
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
(e '~t City of Columbia Heights
~" '~ Tax Forfeit Parcels
E G E N D Map Description
Panel* This map illustrates 2 sites that have ~en ~l~a H~ts
c~y Par~ d~sified as tax foffeR parcels. 4250 McLeod
Water F~ms ! ~reet is roughly 72 feet ~ by 160 f~t
len¢h. 4236 Cleveland Street is approximately
Fo~ Pardi 110 ~ 150 and is com~etely lan~ocked.
~ Map Date: October 7, 1999
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Anoka County, Minnesota
DATE: September 14, 1999 RESOLUTION #99-143
OFFERED BY COMMISSIONER: Berg
CLASSIFICATION OF NON-CONSERVATION PROPERTY
FOR LAND SALE PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Anoka County, Minnesota, has prepared a
list, designated as Clas.,ificatlon Est Number 2000, a copy of which Is attached hereto as Exhibits L,
(Platted), M (Unplabed) and N (Withdrawn), and hereby by reference made pert hereof, which list
describe., land., forfeited to the State of MInnasota pursuant to Chapter 282 of the Minnesota Statutes,
and has determined that it Is advisable to .,ell said land; and,
WHEREAS, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners must classify ail tax*forfeited land as
con.,erv~flon or non-conservation under Section 282.01 of the Minnesota Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the board of county commissioners has considered the present usa of adjacent lands
found in said list, the productivity of the soil, the character of forest or other growth, the accessibility of
the lend., listed to establish roads, schools, and other public services, and their peculiar .,uitability or
desirability for particular uses; and,
WHEREAS, the classification and sale of any tax.forfeited land lying within the bounds of any
organized tow~l with a taxable value in excess of $20,000 or Incorporated municipality must be approved
by the town board of such town or the governing body of .,uch municipality, insofar as the lands located
therein m'e concerned; and,
WHEREAS, the "'aid tow~ board or governing body will be deemed to have approved the
classification and sale if the county board is not notified of the disapproval of the classification and sale
within sixty days of the date the request for approval was transmitted to the town board or goveming body;
and,
WHEREAS, If the town board or governing body desire"' to acquire any pamel lying in the town
or municipality by procedure"' authorized by Section 282.01, it shall, within sixty days of the request for
classification and sale, file a wflffan application with the county board to withhold the parcel from public
sale for six (S) month"'.
WHEREAS, if a municipality or govemmentaJ.,ubdivisicn file., awritten application with the county
board to withhold the parcel from public .,ale for .,ix (6) month"', the municipality or governmental
subdivision "'hail pay maintenance costs Incurred by the county during the "'ix-month period while the
properly ia withheld form public .,ale, provided the property Is not offered for public sale after the six (6)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that each parodi .,hown on Clas.,iflcation Ust Number
2000 is hereby clas.,Iflad as non-con.,etvation and approved for .,ale, subject to review by the town
board"', and governing bodias of municipalities In Anoka County under Chapter 282 of the Minnesota
Statutes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anoka County Land Commissioner shall forward a copy of
the resolution to the town board of any organized township in Anoka County with taxable valuation in
exce.,s of $20,000, and to the governing body of an incorporated municipality for their review.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t~r~t If the town board or governing body of a municipality fails to
notify the county board of the disapproval of a classifica~.lon and sale of any of the lands dascrioed herein
within sixty days of the date the request herein IS transmitted to the town board or governing body of a
municipality, It will be deemed to have approved the classification and sale.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the town board or governing body desires to acquire any
parcel lying In the town or municipality under Section 282.01, It -,hail, within sixty days of the request for
classification and sale, file a wfltten application with the county board to withhold the parcel from public
laie for .,Ix (6) months.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if a municipality or govemmantaJ subdivision files a written
appllcafiun with the county board to withhold a parcel from Public Sale for slx (6) months, the municipality
or govemmantai .,ubdivi.,ion ,=hail pay maintenance costs incurred by the county during the six-month
period while the property is withheld from public .,ale, provided the property is not offered for public sale
after the "'ix-month period.
· RESOLUTION #99-143
Page 2
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF ANOKA ) SS
I, John 'Jay' McLinden, County
Administrator, Anoka County, Minnesota, hereby
certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of
the resolution of the county Board of said County
with the original record thereof on file in the
Adn'dnlstration Office, Anoka County, M~nnesota, as
stated in the minutes of the proceedings of ~aid
Board at · meeting duly heid on September 14,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DISTRICT #1 - BERG
D~STRICT #2 - LANG X
D~STR~CT #3 - LANGFELD X
DISTRICT #4 - KORDIA~ X
DISTRICT #5 - McCAULEY X
D~ STR~C'T #6 - MCCARRON X
DISTRICT #7 - ERHART X
YES NO
X
P. EPORT: FORFTCRPT GENERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20:36 RUN:
PARCEL PIN# 36 30 24 24 003%
Please complete the following in£ormation by answering all applicable question~.
1. Is this parcel buildable or ,,-~uildable? %' .'
(al Has your city/township adopted a local ordinance governing minimum
area, ihape, frontage or access?
(If yes, ~nswer lb~ if no, proceed to question S.) yes
Does this parcel com~ly with your local ordinances regarding minimum
area, ehape, frontage or access and, becauee of thie, can be im~roved?
zf it doas not co~ly, plaasa list raa$on(s) for non co~liance.
It complies with minimum requirements, but the lot is essentia]ly
unbulldabie because of setback and topography issues.
2. Do you race---end combining this parcel with an abutting forfeit parcel
(if there il one)?
The parcel does not abut a forfeit parcel.
3. if your answer to #2 is yes, indicate which parcel on the l/st.
4. Do you reco~nd selling this parcel to the ~butting landowner?
5. k'nat is the current zoning of the forfeit parcel? R-l, Single Family Residential
6. Are there any buildings on the parcel?
present condition?
No
If so, what type, and what ~s their
7. Do you_ha_ye an appraised value on the parcel? If so, what is it?
8. Does the city or township went an aaeemen= over the parcel?
9. Any other infor~ation you £eel would he helpful.
Existing easement
must remain
The property meets minimum lot size requirements, but it is
essentially unbulldable because of setback and topography issues.
10. Nam~ and title of person who completed this quas.t~lonnaire.
Joe HolJman, Planner
Thank you for providing the information.
Please return to= Gene hf£erty, Land C~4ssioner
Anoha County ~ov~znment Center
2100 3rd Avenue
A~oka, ~N
323-5427
REPORT: FORFTCRPT GENE]~ATED: 27 MAR 1999 20=36
VERIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSI(ENTS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PARCEL PIN#' 36 30 24 24 003% Date of Forfeiture=
06/08/1999
Before For£eitureAmount
After Forfeiture Amount
Special Assessments Not Previously Certified
Watershed District
We ask ~hat you enter the -~unt of special assessments b7 category on the
captioned parcel. If there are none, please enter a zero.
If you need to verify the -~unts, please contact the Special Assessn~nts
Clerk at 323-5434 in the Property Records and Taxation Division.
I~ your municipality or township has not previously certified special
assessments on a forfeit property, you should now certify them to the
PROPERTY RECORDS AND TAXATION DIVISION, and enter them on the line, sSpecial
Assessments Not Previously Certi£iedm.
Im~rov----nts before forfeiture should include principal and interest up to the
date o£ for~eiture and all deferred installments of principal.
Improvements after forfeiture should include ONLY THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT.
MS 282.01, Subd. 3 requires improvements mede a~ter forfeiture to be
considered by the County Board in setting the appraised value for sale
purposes. The apportionment of proceeds after sale is done in accordance with
MS 282.08.
Clerk of Township, Municipality or
Watershed District
(Seal)
P~PORT= PORFTCRPT
GENERATED= 27 NAR 1999 20:36
PARCEL PIN# 36 30 24 14 0012
Please complete the following in£ormation by answering all applicable questions.
1. Is this parcel buildabls or unbuildable?
Has your city/township adopted a local ordinance governingm~nimum
area, shape, frontage or access? - Yes
(If yes, answer lb; if no, proceed to question S.)
Does this parcel con~ly with your local ordinances regarding m/nimum
area, shape, frontage or access and, because of this, can be im~rovsd?
If it does not co~ly, please list reason(s) £or non co~liance.
The property does not have access on a public street.
2. DO you recommend combining this parcel with an abutting for£eit'percel
(if there is one)?
The property does not abut a forfeit parce).
3. If your answer to #2 is yes, indicate which parcel on the list.
4. Do you taco--nd selling this parcel to the abutting landowner?
5. ~lhat is the current zoning o~ the £or£eit parcel? R-2 Single and Two Family Res.
Are there any buildings on the parcel?
present condition?
so, what ty~e, and what is their
7. Do you have an appraised value on the parcel? If so, what is it?
8. Does the city or township want an aafo~a~nt over the parcel?
9. Any other information you feel would be help£ul.
The parcel is located on a platted right-of-way which has never
been developed.
10. Name and title of person who completed this questionnaire.
Joe Hollman, Planner
Thank you for providing the in£ozmation.
Please return to= Gene laf£erty, land C~--~,~ssioner
Anoka County ~ovez~mant Center
2100 3rd Avenue
AnO~, MN 5S303
322-5427
REPORT: FORFTCRPT GENERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20:36
VERIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSZSSMENTS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PARCEL PIN# 36 30 24 14 0012 Date of Forfeiture:
06/08/1999
Before ForfeitureAmount
After Forfeiture Amount
Special Assessments Not Previously Certified
Watershed District
We ask that you enter the -~eunt of special assessments by category on the
captioned parcel. If there are none, please enter a zero.
If you need to verify the -mounts, please contact the Special Assessments
Clerk at 323-5434 in the Property Records and Taxation Division.
If your municipality.or township has not previously certified special
assessments on a forfeit property, you should now certit~ them to ~he
PROPERTY P~ECORDS AND TAXATION DIVISION, and enter them on the line, "Special
Assessments Not Previously Certified".
Im~rov---nts before forfeiture should include principal and interest up to the
date of forfeiture and all deferred installments of principal.
Improvements after forfeiture should include ONLY Tw~ TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT.
MS 282.01, Subd. 3 requires improvements made after forfeiture to be
considered by the County Board in setting the appraised value for sale
purposes. The apportionment of proceeds after sale is done in accordance with
MS 282.08.
Clerk of Township, Municipality or
Watershed District
(Seal)
Date
GENE RAFFERTY
Land Commissioner
Direct #323-5427
Mr. Walter Fehst
Manager, City of Columbia Heights
590 - 40th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Dear Walter:
RECEIVED
22 1999
C O U N T Y O F A N O EvELo ..
Office ofGouernmen~lServicesDivision
GOVERNMENT CENTER
2100 3rd Avenue · Anoka, Minnes~a 55303-2489
(612) 323-5680
September 16, 1999
MAH,' GER
0F ....
Re: Approval of Classification and Sale of Forfeit Land - CL2000 Exhibits L, M & N
Enclosed you should find the following:
Resolution #99-143 dated September 14, 1999, classifying certain forfeit lands in Anoka
County.
A classification and sale approval form listing the lands classified in Resolution 99-143 that lie
within your jurisdiction, which is to be sinned, sealed and returned to us alonq with a copy of
the motion or resolution of your qoveminq body aoorovinq the classification and sale.
A form for the forfeit parcels shown on the list of forfeit lands in your jurisdiction to help us
analyze and appraise the parcel. We ask that you complete and return these forms to us.
A verification of special assessments form which is to be completed, signed, sealed and
returned to us.
Chapter 282.01, Subdivision 1, of the Minnesota Statutes requires that the Town Board or governing
body of a municipality must approve the classification and sale of forfeit parcels that lie within their
jurisdiction. If disapproval of any parcel is not made within 60 days from the date of this letter, it is
deemed that the Town Board or governing body has approved the classification and sale.
If the Town Board or governing body desires to acquire any parcel lying within the boundaries of the
municipality, it shall, within 60 days of the request for classification and sale approval, file a written
application with the County Board to withhold the pamel from sale. The County Board will then
withhold the pamel from sale for six months.
A municipality or Township will have to pay maintenance costs incurred by the county (if any) during/
the six months the property is withheld from public sale, and if the parcel is not offered for public sale
after the six month period.
FAX: 323-5682 Afl rmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer TDD/TTY: 323-5289
September 16, 1999
Page 2
All parcels on the list are still within the repurchase period. If you desire to acquire any parcels still
within the repurchase period, you can file an application which can be acted upon at the appropriate
time, assuming the County Board does not allow repurchase of the parcel.
If you have any parcels in your packet that are shown as withdrawn under Chapter 282.018, you can
apply to acquire them or approve their sale, but a special bill will first have to be passed by the
legislature before they could be sold to anyone. That is assuming the DNR will support the sale and
not require them to remain in public ownership.
We would like to have all the forms and paperwork returned to us by November 19, 1999.
We appreciate your help and understanding in getting this project put together. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Yours very truly,
Anoka County Land Commissioner
GR:blo
Enclosures
CC;
Commissioner Dennis Berg
Jay McLinden, County Administrator
Maureen Devine, Division Manager, Governmental Services
REPORT: FORFTCRPT
GENERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20:36
CLASSIFICATION
APPRAISED
SUBDIVISION SEC/LOT TWP/BLOCK RANGE VALUE OF LAL'D
RESERVOIR HILLS
2. 36 30 24 2% 0034
KEY 285275
LOT I ELK 3 RESERVOIR HILLS,
EX W 15 FT THEREOF, ALSO EX N
125 FT THEREOF, SURJ TO EASE
OF REt
I 3
State of ltLnnesota
County of Anok&
State of K~nnesota
The £oregoing classification of lends above described lying within the
boundaries of the CITY OF COLUMBIA KEIOHTS ~n aaid County and State
il hereby approved.
Dated
The CITY COUNCIL
Atteat:
Of the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BY
[MAYOR]
[CLERK]
PAGE I
REPORT= FORFTCRPT GENERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20=36 RUN:
CLASSIFICATION
APPRAISED
SUBDIVISION SEC/LOT TWP/BLOCK I~J~NGE VALUE OF LARD
AUD SUB WALTONS SUN AC 4TH
3. 36 30 24 14 0012
KEY 248011
S 150 FT OF LOT i BLK 2 AUD
SUB OF WALTONS SUNNY ACRES
4TH~ SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
i 2
State o£ Minnesota
County of Anoka
State of Minnesota
The foregoing classi£1cation of lands above described lying within the
boundaries of the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS in said County and State
is hereby approved.
Dated ,
Attest=
The CITY COUNCIL
of the CITY OF COLU]4~IA HEIGHTS
BY
[CLERK] [MAYOR]
PAGE 2
REPORT: FORFTCRPT GENERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20:36
PARCEL INFOP. MATION TO CLASSIFY
AND APPRA/SE TAX-FORFEIT LARD
PLATTED
Cfty of
Parcel PIN #
Description=
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
36 30 24 24 0034
LOT I BLK 3 RESERVOIR HILLS,
125 FT THEREOF, SUBJ TO EASE
EX W 15 FT THEREOF, ALSO EX N
OF REC
Geographic
THIS APPROXIMATELY 86' X 315' RECTANGULAR LOT IS LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF MCLEOD ST ONE BLOCK WEST OF RESERVOIR
BLVD.
REPORT: FORFTCRPT GENEPJ~TED= 27 MAR 1999 20:36 R~N:
PARCEL PIN# 36 30 24 24 0034
Please complete the following information by answering all applicable questions.
1. Is this parcel buildable or unbuildable?
(a) Has your city/township adopted a local ordinance governing minimum
area, shape, frontage or access?
(if yes, answer lb~ if no, proceed to question 5.)
(b) Does this parcel comply with your local ordinances regarding minimum
area, shape, frontage or access and, because of this, can be improved?
If it does not comply, please list reason(s) for non com~liance.
2. DO you reco~nd combining this parcel with an abutting forfeit parcel
(if there is one)?
3. If your answer to #2 is yes, indicate which parcel on the list.
4. Do you reco~nd selling this parcel to the abutting landowner?
5. What is the current zoning of the forfeit parcel?
6. Are there any buildings on the parcel? If so, what type, and what Ks their
present condition?
7. Do you_h~e an appraised value on the parcel? If so, what is it?
8. Does the city or township want an ease-~nt over the parcel?
9. Any other information you feel would be helpful.
10. Name and title of person who completed this questionnaire.
Thank you for providing the information.
Please return to:
Gene Rafferty, Land Commissioner
Anoka County ~overnment Center
2100 3rd Avenue
Anoka, ~N 55303
323-5427
REPORT= PORFTCRPT G~NERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20=36
V~RIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSM~NTS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PARCEL PIN# 36 30 24 24 0034 Date o£ Forfeiture=
06/08/1999
Before ForfeitureAmount
After Forfe£ture Amount
Special Assessments Not Previously Certified
Watershed District
We ask that you enter the amount of special assessments b7 catego~ on the
captioned parcel. If there are none, please enter a sero.
If you need to verify the amounts, please contact the Special Assessments
Clerk at 323-5434 in the Property Records and Taxation Division.
If your municipality or township has not previously certi£ied special
assessments on a forfeit property, you should now certify them to the
PROPERTY RECORDS AND TAXATION DIVISION, and enter them on the line, gSpacial
Assessments Not Previously Certified'.
Improvements before forfeiture should include principal and interest up to the
date of forfeiture and all deferred installments of principal.
Improvements after forfeiture should include ONLY THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT.
MS 282.01, Subd. 3 requires improv-~nts mede after forfeiture to be
considered by the County Board in setting the appraised value £or sale
purposes. The apportionment of proceeds after sale is done in accordance with
MS 282.08.
Clerk of Township, Municipality or
Watershed Diltrict
(Seal)
Date
REPORT: FORFTCRPT
GENERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20:36
PARCEL INFORMATION TO CLASSIFY
AND APPRAISE TAX-FORFEIT LAND
UNPLATTED
Ci=y of
Parcel PIN #
Description:
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
36 30 24 14 0012
S 150 PT OF LOT I BLK 2 AUD
4TH~ SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
SUB OF WALTONS SUNNY ACRES
Geographic Location:
THIS APPROXIMATELY 110' X 150' RECTANGULAR LOT IS LAND-
LOCKED BEHIND 2012 43RD AVE NE ~UST WEST OF BENJAMIN ST NE.
REPORT: FORFTCRPT GENERATED: 27 MAR 1999 20:36 RUN:
PARCEL PIN# 36 30 24 14 0012
Please complete the following information by answering all applicable question~.
1. Is this parcel buildable or unbuildable?
(a) Has your city/township adopted a local ordinance govar~ing minimum
area, shape, frontage or access?
(If yes, answer lb; if no, proceed to q~astion 5.)
(b) Does this parcel comply wi~h your local ordinances regarding minimum
area, shape, frontage or access and, because of this, can be im~roved?
If it does not comply, please list reason(s) for non compliance.
2. DO you recoma~nd combining this parcel with an abutting £orfeit parcel
(if there is one)?
3. I~ your answer to #2 is yes, indicate which parcel on the list.
4. Do you recommend selling this parcel to the abutting landowner?
5. What is the currant zoning of the for£eit parcel?
6. Ara there any buildings on the parcel? If so, what type, and what is their
present condition?
7. DO you have an appraised value on the parcel? If so, what is it?
8. Does the city or township went an eas~nt over the parcel?
9. Any other information you feel would be helpful.
10. Nm and title of person who completed this questionnaire.
Thank you for providing ~he info~mation.
Please return to:
C~ne ~af£erty, Land Comaissioner
Anoka County ~overnment Center
3100 3rd Avenue
&aok~, ]~ 5S303
323-5427
REPORT: FORFTCRPT GENEP, ATED: 27 MAR 1999 20:36
VERIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PARCEL PIN# 36 30 24 14 0012 Date of Forfeiture:
06/08/1999
RUN:
Before Forfeiture Amount
After Forfeiture Amount
Special Assessments Not Previously Certified
Watershed District
We ask that you enter the amount of special assessments by category on the
captioned parcel. If there are none, please enter a zero.
If you need to verify the amounts, please contact the Special Assessments
Clerk at 323-5434 in the Property Records and Taxation Division.
If your municipality.or township hms not previously certified special
assessments on a forfeit property, you should now certify them to the
PROPERTY RECORDS ARD TAXATION DIVISION, and enter them on the line, "Special
Assessments Not Previously Certified'.
Improvements before forfeiture should include principal end interest up to the
date of forfeiture and ell deferred installments of principal.
Improvements after forfeiture should include ONLY T~E TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT.
MS 282.01, Subd. 3 requires improvements mede after forfeiture to be
considered by the County Board in setting the appraised value for sale
purposes. The apportionment of proceeds after sale is done in accordance with
MS 282.08.
Clerk of Township, Municipality or
Watershed District
(Seal)
Date
STREET IDENTIFICATION LIST OF PARCELS SHOWN ON
CLASSIFICATION LIST CL200
PLATTED
EXHIBIT L
CITY OF EAST BETHEL
10.
36 33 23 24 0067 COM)$ISSIONEH DISTRICT 02
THIS A~PROXIMATLEY 100' X 100' SQUARE LOT IS LOCATED ON THE
SE COHNER OF FOREST ROAD AND E~{ERSON DRIVE.
11.
35 33 23 44 0001 COMMISSIONER DISTRI~ 02
THIS CRESCE~ SHA~ED LOT IS TOT~LY UNDER WATER IN COON
LAKE.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
2% 30 2% 32 0079 COM)EISSIONER DISTRICT 04
THIS ;tPPROXIMATELY 175' X 222' X 278' IRREGULA~ SF~APED
PARCEL IS LOCATED AT Tn~ END OF POLK ST SOUTH OF LYNDE
DRIVE NE.
2% 30 2% 44 0199 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 04
THIS APPROXIMATELY 25' X 50' RECTAN~u~%R PARCEL IS AN OPEN
AR~A BETWEEN GARAGES LEADING TO TWO TOWNHOUSES.
2% 30 24 44 0293 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 04
THIS APPROXIMATELY 10' X 25' RECTANGULAR PIECE IS A PARKING
SPACE FOR THE TOWNHOUSES.
2% 30 24 %4 0294 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 04
THIS APPROXIMATELY 10' X 25' RECTANGULAR PIECE IS A PARKING
SPACE FOR THE TOWNHOUSES.
24 30 2% %4 0295 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 0%
THIS A.PPROXIMATEL¥ 10' X 25' RECTANGULAR PIECE IS A PARKING
SPACE OF THE TOWNHOUSES.
TOWNSHIP OF LINWOOD
17.
18.
0% 33 22 31 0009 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 02
THIS A~PROXIMATELY 150' X 200' NECTANGULAR LOT CONTAINS A
S)$~T.?. BOARDED UP HOUSE. IT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE 0P
225TH AVE WEST OF WEST MARTIN LAKE DRIVE
04 33 22 31 0010 COMMISSION~R DISTRICT 02
THIS APPROXIMATELY 50' X 150' RECTA~u~AR LOT IS LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 225TH AVE WEST OF WEST MARTIN LAKE
DRIVE.
STREET IDENTIFICATION LIST OF PARCELS SHOWN ON
CLASSIFICATION LIST CL200
UNPLATTED
EXHIBIT
TOWNSHIP OF BURNS
27 33 25 43 0001 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 01
THIS APPROXIMATELY 1.36 ACRE RECTANGULAR SHA~ED PARCEL IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 190TH LN JUST WEST OF
DOLOMITE ST N.W.
27 33 25 43 0007 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 01
THIS APPROXIMATELY 218' X 328' RECTANGULAR SHAPED PARCEL
IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 189TH LN NW JUST EAST OF
DOLOMITE ST NW.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
3. 36 30 ~4 14 0012 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 04
THIS APPROXIMATELY 110' X 150' P~CTANGULAR LOT IS LAND-
LOCKED BEHIND 2012 43RD AVE NE JUST WEST OF BENJAMIN ST NE.
CITY OF EAST BETHEL
01 33 23 24 0003 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 02
THIS APPROXIMATELY 33' X 33' X 4~' TRIANGLE IS LANDLOCKED
AND INACCESSIBLE ABOUT 200 YAP. DS SE OF THE END OF JEWELL
ST N.E.
CITY OF HAM LA~E
5o
07 32 23 14 0003 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 02
THE APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRE PARCEL IS LOCATED WEST oF POLK
ST ABOUT A HALF MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY RD 18.
CITY OF OAK GROVE
CITY OF ST. FP.-%RCIS
36 34 24 43 0005 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 01
THIS APPROXIMATELY 35' X 210' TRIANGULAR PARCEL IS LOCATED
NEXT TO THE BNRR RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY
RD 13.
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 1999
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL
ITEM: RECOMMENDATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BY: LINDA L. MAGE~ BY:
FOR PRE-PLACEMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS DATE: 10-12-99~/~ ] DATE:
NO:
Backqround:
The City of Columbia Heights has had a contract which covers pre-placement medical
examinations (including drug screening collection services) with Dr. Gary Good since October,
1986. As you are aware, Dr. Good is retiring as of November 1, 1999.
Analysis:
A request for proposals for pre-placement medical examinations was prepared and sent out to
six area medical clinics which had been contacted by phone to verify interest, address, and
contact person. A notice was also placed in the Focus newspaper. Proposals were received
until Tuesday, September 21, 1999. Four proposals were received (see attached). The four
proposals were reviewed by a committee consisting of the Assistant to the City Manager, Police
Chief, Finance Director, Public Works Director, and Acting Fire Chief, and two were invited
to be interviewed. Interviews were conducted by the committee.
Conclusion:
Staff recommends entering into a contract with Columbia Park Medical Group for the provision
of pre-placement medical examinations.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the written proposal for pre-placement medical examinations
as made by Columbia Park Medical Group, and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter
into an agreement for same.
COUNCIL ACTION:
PRE-PLACEMENT EXAM iDRUG SCREEN
(COLLECTION)
COLUMBIA PARK $49.00 $18.00
MEDICAL GROUP
MULTICARE $49.00 $18.00
ASSOCIATES
PARK NICOLLET $52.50 $53.00*
CLINIC
ALLINA MEDICAL $57.00 $25.00
GROUP
*Includes test and medical review officer
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Work Session off October 18, 1999
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING CITY
NO: CONSENT DEPARTMENT: MANAGER'S
SPECIAL PROJECTS APPROVAL ,
ITEM: NO: BY: JEAN KUEHN BY:
DATE: October 11,1999 DATE:
A. The staff, council and community members feel a City Web Site is desirable and that it would:
1. Enhance city exposure to potential new residents and businesses.
2. Add a new dimension of commtmication to current residents.
3. Make information about the City available to those individuals who work in Columbia Heights, but live
elsewhere and do not receive city publications or notices.
4. Increase exposure for employment opportunities.
5. Allow all residents greater access to information from City Hall.
B. Eleven consulting firms had expressed interest in designing the web site and were sent information requesting a
quote. Staff received quotes from six consultants on the costs of establishing a web site for the City. Staff members
are creating the information to be put into this site.
C. NetlLink Intemational of St. Paul has considerable experience in designing web sites specifically for cities and
while they were not the lowest bid, staff is recommending them as the best firm based on their experience and
technical support offered to the city.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with NetLink International of St. Paul to
create, develop and implement a city web site based on quotes received by staff and for NetLink to provide
instructions to enable staff to update and modify the city web site at a cost between $7,225 and $9,775.
ALTERNATE MOTION: Authorize staffto enter into an agreement with Vital Services Inc. to create, develop and
implement a city web site based on quotes received by staff and for Vital Services Inc .to provide instructions to
enable staff to update and modify the city web site at a cost not to exceed $6,400.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
Net Link International
Art Carruth
2550 University Ave W. #240 N
St. Paul, MN 55114
art @,netlink.nlink,com
651-645-5101 Fax 651-945 -0615
McIntyre Publications
Barbara Mcintyre
P.O. Box 29591
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
mci~,_,mcintr~erepublications.com
612 789-6244
Web Services
Diane Ward
9817 Heath Ave South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
webmaster~_ ~northerglow.com
651-458-9540
Telecide Productions
Larry Hutchinson
9201 No. Lexington Ave
Cimle Pines, MN 55014
www.telecide~aol.com
612-785-0351
Vital Services Inc.
John Haluska or Eric
5660 Arthur St. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
www.vitalserve.com
612-502-1456
Tony Roame
Illustrated Concepts
7376 Stinson Blvd NE
Fridley, MN 55432
www. IlustratedConcepts.com
Savvy Net
Bill Sweat, Director
3989 Central Ave NE #530
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
www.savv~net.com
788-0011
John Rogers www.j ohnrogers~,juno.com
Columbia Heights Police Department
Worldwide Information Services
Attn.: Lee Wallace
415 Comstock Lane
Mpls, MN 55447-3656
www.worldwideinformationservices@,aol.com
Amantis Information Engineering
Attn: Laura Anderson
300 First Ave South, Suite 200
Mpls, MN 55401
www.amantis~aol.com
Dan Kuch
Comptech System
3601 Park Center Blvd
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Home~ 4020 Hayes St. NE, Columbia Heights
www.comptech~juno.com
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1999
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
MEL COLLOVA, BUILDING OFFICIAL
JOE HOLLMAN, CITY PLANNER <~;~/Z/
JEFF'S BOBBY AND STEVE'S AUTOWORLD
The following provides a summary of the issues that are in need of resolution prior to the
issuance ora Final Certificate of Occupancy for Jeff's Bobby and Steve's Autoworld at 3701 and
3828 Central Avenue NE.
Lighting. The light fixtures installed on the building at 3701 Central Avenue NE need to
be replaced with the Step Neck Deep Bowl/Downlight. Note that these fixtures have
been ordered, and are being manufactured. Staff attempted to contact the lighting
contractor earlier today and left a voice message. Council can anticipate receiving the
following information during their October 18 meeting: 1) What date were the fixtures
ordered; 2) How many fixtures were ordered; and, 3) Approximately when will the
fixtures be installed. In a previous conversation with the lighting contractor, staff was
informed that the fixtures needed to be manufactured and they would be installed as soon
as they were available.
Rooftop Screening. The mechanical equipment located on the roof of the building at
3701 Central Avenue is required to be screened.
Signage. The contractor needs to core-drill the holes for permanent directional signs
addressing no left tums from the driveways to Central Avenue NE as required by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Holes for "No Parking" signs along Central
Avenue NE also need to be core-drilled by the contractor.
Guardrail/Safety Fence. The construction of the guardrail/safety barrier/fence adjacent
to the retaining wall on the south side of the improved alley and that portion of the
retaining wall adjacent to Reservoir Boulevard which is at least 30 inches in height above
grade level has been completed. However, the ground surface needs to be regraded to
provide no more than a 12 inch gap between the bottom rail and grade. Any lighting
associated with this guardrail will need to have plans reviewed and approved by
Community Development Department staff prior to the installation of these lights.
Traffic Impact Barrier. Three reflector posts need to be positioned clearly visible and
parallel to the barrier.
Jeff's Bobby and Steve's Autoworld
October 15, 1999
Page 2
Maximum Occupant Load. The maximum occupant load for the upstairs at 3701
Central Avenue NE needs to be posted.
Retaining Wall. As-built drawings of the rock retaining wall will need to be submitted
to the City. According to the contractor, as-built drawings will not be completed until all
real property is in place.
Engineering Information. Additional information as required by the City Engineer
regarding storm water restrictors and rooftop water storage will need to be supplied to
the Public Works Department.
Park Dedication/S20,000. The $20,000 required in lieu of park land dedication will
need to be provided to the City.
10.
Other Reimbursements. The City will invoice Autoworld for payment ora portion of
the costs for the traffic study performed by the consulting engineers from BRW.
Payment must be received prior to issuance ora Final Certificate of Occupancy.
The following summarizes the necessary steps that have been completed since the Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy was issued on July 15, 1999.
Handicap Parking. Handicap parking signage and no parking signs for the access aisles
have been installed on both 3701 and 3828 Central Avenue NE.
Guardrail/Safety Fence. The construction of the guardrail/safety barrier/fence adjacent
to the retaining wall on the south side of the improved alley and that portion of the
retaining wall adjacent to Reservoir Boulevard which is at least 30 inches in height above
grade level has been constructed. However, as mentioned above, grading work needs to
be done.
Traffic Impact Barrier. A traffic impact barrier located at the south end of the existing
north/south alley has been constructed and is subject to final approval by the City
Engineer and Building Official.
4. Hydroseeding. The hydroseeding as indicated on the Landscape Plan is completed.
5. Signage. Necessary pernfits for temporary signage have been acquired.
Final Plat. The final plat has signed by the City Clerk and City Engineer and will be
recorded with Anoka County after final approval by the County Surveyor.
Attachments
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN $$421-3878 (612) 7~)2-2800 TDD 782-2806
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
- [/ia FAX and Mail-
Mayor
Gary L. Peterson
Councilmembers
Donald G. Jolly
Marlaine Szurek
Julienn¢ Wyckoff
John Hunter
City Manager
Walter R. Fehst
October 15, 1999
Ken3' Gullickson
LAN Construction
4506 Robin Circle
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Re: '`No Parking" Signs
Dear Kerry:
As a condition of the Central Avenue median opening permit, MnDOT is requiring that you
install "No Parking" signs along Central Avenue. You are responsible for core-drilling the holes
at the locations marked by the Columbia Heights Public Works Department. The Public Works
Department will then install the signs.
Do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 782-2856 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
,City Planner
CC:
Ken Anderson, Community Development Director
Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS;, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806
Mayor:
Gary L. Pe~erson
Councilmembers:
Doaald G./oily
Marlain¢ Szurek
J'ulienne Wyckoff
Jolm Hunter
City Manager:
Walter IL Fehst
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
October 5, 1999
JeffBahe
3701 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Bobby Williams
1221 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, M2q 55415
Paul C. Steffenson
301 4~h Avenue South
270 Grain Exchange North
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Re: Extension to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Dear Jeff, Bobby and Paul:
As you know the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy which was initially issued for the Fuel
Station, Convenience Center, and Chevy Grill at Jeff's, Bobby and Steve's Auto World, at 3701
Central Avenue NE, which was originally issued on July 15, 1999, had expired on September 6,
1999. There are a number of outstanding issues which are of concern to the City Council and City
Staffand still require completion in a very short time flame. The Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy was extended on September 7~ an additional 30 days until October 6, 1999. On
September 8, 1999 a letter dated September 7, 1999 was faxed to the City Planner from Kerry
Gullickson of Lan Construction. In that letter he referred to several outstanding issues and
commented on the status of each. In reviewing this letter several of the time frames noted for
installation of improvements have expired and work has not yet been completed.
The purpose of this letter is to impress upon you in no uncertain terms the importance to complete
the remaining outstanding issues on a timely basis. We understand in direct conversations with
City View Electric that the lights have been ordered and will be installed as soon as they become
available to the contractor. Therefore, we recognize completion of this item will remain pending
until such time as those fixtures are received. Secondly, we will be forwarding an invoice to Auto
World for payment of one-ttfird of the cost of a traffic study performed by consulting engineers
from BRW under contract to the City. A th/rd of these costs were paid by the City of Minneapo-
lis, a third by the City of Columbia Heights, and a third by Auto World. The invoice will also
identify reimbursement for street sweeping necessary as a result of construction activities in the
area, traffic control expenses, and acquisition and installation of signs to include "No Le~ Turn"
signs on site and in the newly constructed median. Three signs were installed at a cost of $I25
per sign. You should also be a~vare that the cost for making the turn lane and median crossing
improvements were approximately $30,000 for which we will not be requesting reimbursement
JeffBahe, Bobby Williams, Paul C. Steffenson
October 5, 1999
Page 2
fi:om you. The City Council has directed that the remaining work be completed on or before
October 15, 1999. In the event this work is not completed by said date, staff has been directed to
cite you for outstanding violations. In a phone conversation(s) today with Mr. Babe, he indicated
the contractor would have revised times for installation of required items sometime tomorrow. If
the completion dates extend beyond October 15, 1999, it will require authorization fi:om the full
City Council to prevent a citation fi:om being issued.
You may contact Mel Collova at 612-782-2818, Joe Hollman at 6t2-782-2856 or me at 612-782-
2855 if you have any questions or require clarification of this letter and attachments. Thank you
for your timely attention to these matters.
~ermeth K~. Orfiderson
Community Development Director
Attachments
c~
Kerry Gullickson, Lan Construction
Honorable Mayor Gary L. Peterson
City Council Members
Walter R. Fehst, City Manager
Mel Collova, Building Official
Joe Hollman, City Planner
Project file
Day file
H:\autoworldcertoccup
~.~ 08 S~ OS:O3a Lan Cons~uc~ion Inc GI~ 51~ 08~3 P.~
7 September 1999
Mr. Joe Hollman
Ci~/of Columbia Heights
5c?0 40* Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 5,5421
Jeff's: Bobby & Steve's Autoworld
3701 Central Avenue HE
Columbia Heights, MN
rILAN CONSTRUCTION
[INCa RPO RATED
We have received your letter pertaining to several outstanding issues ~or the pro[ed loco~on
listed above.
Mease be advised of the status as fatlows:
Directional signage installc~on is a scheduling issue for the installers of these
produc~. They anticipate this work to be completecl within the week ending 16 Sept.
2) The light l:Lxture globe replacemen~ have been ordered by our elect~cal contractor,
City View Electric, but we have r~o definite delivery established. Feel free to contact
Wade at City View br updates as needed at (651) 659-9496.
3) As-built drawings will not be completed un~l ail real property is in.place. Items
remaining are the fencing and vacuums. As explained to Kevin Hanson this is also a
requirement of the mortgage company so a copy of this will be fonvarded when
available.
4) We have approved shop drowincj far the rooftop screening today, fabrication will
begin an Monday, instoJlat~on shortly after.
5) Handicap signage will be installed by the same company installing direc~onal
sign~:ge so this will also be completed within that time frame.
6) Guardreil fencing products have been received and fabrication of these products is
progressing this week. lnstoll~on should take place Pater this week and into next
/ OB 99 OS:03a
Lan Constuction Inc
7] Guardrail lighting has been received but specification for some has not been
submi~d to us. We have instructed them to submit this information directly to the c~y
for rev/ew.
8) We have instructed our Jandscape contractor to build this ~ruc~re as shown on
their drawings. This should meet the ~teria outfined within your letter.
9)Hydroseeding will be installed by the end oF this wee~.
11 ) Your inspection department was asked to inspect ali items now tn quest/on. These
inspection were conducted and records of same should be available from the
appropriate depor~nents.
You will need to consult with the owners of this project for ~nformafion included in your leffer
but noJ 1isted above.
By the way Joe, we are a bit puz~ed by your u~ency of these matters considering the ~d that
you have not ~ued a final Cer~ficate af Occupancy for the service ~aci[i~ acro~ the street.
We will certainly suggest to our cllen~s that the receive this pr/or to cIos[ng the remaining issues
out.
Should you have any que~ons, please call.
Respectfully submitted
Kerry Gullickson
cc: Robert A. Williams
Jeff Bahe
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 AOTN AVENUE N.E., COLUMEHA HEIGHTS, M lq 55421-3878 (6 ! 2) 782-2800 TDO 7/~2-2806
September 14, 1999
COMMUNTrY DEVELOPMENT DEPART~ENT
IeffBahe
3701 Central Avenu~ NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Bobby Will~am~
1221 Washington Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Re: 30 Day Extension to Tu~.porary Certificate of Occupancy
Dear left and Bobby:
As you know the Temporary Cert~cste of Occupancy for the fuel station, convenience center, and
Chevy Grill at JeWs Bobby and Stove's Autoworld, 3701 Central Avenue NE expired on September 6,
1999. Please see the attached letter dated September 2, 1999, explaining the issues that n~d resolution
prior to the issuance of a Final Core,cate of Occupancy. If extenuating circumstances existed ma~4,~g it
impossible to meet the requirements of the Temporary Certificate by September 6, a written request to
extend the Temporax'y Certificate of Occupancy was required to be submitted to the Building Official by
no later than 12:00 noon on September. 7. We did receive a letter fi:om Kerry Guilickson on September 8
addressing most of the re~ain~ng issues. As a result the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy has been
extended for an additional 30 days until Wednesday, October 6, 1999. Issues not addressed by Mr.
Gullickson's letter that sti~I need resolution are as follows.
1. Final plat. On April 26, 1999, the Columbia Heights City Cotmcfl approved the final plat for
Bobby and Stove's Autoworld. The plat will need to be recorded with Anoka County prior t~ the
issuance ora Final Certificate of Occupancy. On September 9, I received a note fi:om the Anok~
County Surveyor stating that the final plat has been reviewed, but a corrected copy needs to be
submitted before approval.
Park Dedication/S20,000. The 520,000 required in lieu ofpaxk land dedication w/ll need to be
provided to the City prior to the issuamce of a F~al Certificate of Occupancy.
Other Reimbursements. The City will invoice Autoworld for pay~h.' ent of a port/on of
the costS for the traffic study performed by the consulting engineers'from BRW.
Payment must be received prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy.
Do not hesitate to contact Mci Collova at (612) 782-2818 or ~'oe ffollman at (612) 782-2856 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Mci Collova
Building Official
City Plarmer
AttachmentS
cc: Kerry Gullickson
ITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Septemb~rl, 1999
C o ~YP:Y DEVELOPS[ENT D EP.~d~TSI]ZNT
C~cBrnembe~
~ Szu~k
3701 Central Argue NE
Columbi~ Hcigkt% MN 55421
Bobby Willimm.s
1221 Washingto~ kv~au~ S.
M{~apolis, ~ 5~415
R~: R.~+,~ I~su~ p~t.,da~g to T=~gor='! Cerd.Ecate of Occap~ncy
Dear I¢ff azd Bobby:.
O~ Tbm'sclay, fuly 15, 1999, · Temporm-y C~'rti~ca~ of Oc~-mpamcy wa~ ~ for the fuel
conve'aiezc: ce=ret, aad. Chevy GtiI1 at Ieff's Bobby. md. Steve's A=oworld, 3701 Cen=aI
Tkis T~u~or~7 C~c~ of Occ~mcy is eftsoon: u~fiI S~pt~mb~ 6, 1999. T'ae follov/mg
~ of the issue~ that n~d. to be r~olve'i prior m ~: ~cz of m F;e~l C~c~m of Ocli/.
Directional S~aage. 2~a~me=t sig~s m:tdz~g no left: turtm from th: driveways to Central
Avenue NE as ~ by t~ M~-~esot~ Department of Tramspomffon will =e~t to be kmzllcd.
a=d. m~n~ned, om the s{te prior to tb.e ismmnce of a F~n~ Certifcat~ of Occup. aacy. Note ~
cot~ ~11~g ~nd ~e ~L~t~ou'of signs will :~c[ to be clone by ~e contractor.
L
L~ghtiag. It ~ been clete~mMed that the Hgkt ~.xmr~ ~ed on ~ b~g at 370 I
Av~ue ~ ~ not comply ~ ~c ~q~c~m of~e Zo~g ~ce. ~ · m~%
~ :~ to be r~lac~ ~ ~e St~ N~k D~ Bow~a~t prior m ~e ~ce
F~u~I C~cate of Oc~.
Retaiain~ WulL As-buff: ctmwi~Ds ofth~ rock r~mi~i~g w~ will :eed. ro be s~bmi~r=d, to ',he
City pr,or m em ism~.~ce of · Fiml C~iEc~¢ of Oc~p~m~.
Rooftop Screening. Tk= mech.~n{c:l ~quip. ment loc=ted, on thc roo~of eke bu.iidi~= at = 01
Central Ave=tm is requir~ to be screen:! Tais shall be aeoomplisE:d, prior to the issuauc: of~
F;~,I Ccrd.15c,.te of Oecd:. a.ucy.
EIaadicap Parking. ]gandicap paf~dng si~ge ~d no p~l~g
be ~ed on bo~ 370I ~d 3~2~ C~ Av~ ~ ~e~a~ly. ~o,
3828 C~ Av~ N~ :e~ to be e~d~ to ei~t feet ~
Gaarflrail. The cons~zuedon of the ~r~'mI/sagety b~ertfe=ce ~jac~t m ~e mm~ning ~
on ~e sou~ si~ of ~e ~mved ~ley =d ~t pa~on of ~c ~g ~I ~j~t to
K~o~ Bo~e~ w~ch is: l~t 30 ~chcs ~ height above ~de level n~ to be
co~[e~ ~or to ~e Fi~ C~cate of Occ~cy.
$~mmb~ I, 1999
Tr--ffic Impzc~ ~Bm'ri~r: The trafS¢ imp~'~ bar~ locsted st the south end of' the e:~st~ng
notch/south ~tley wiIl need to 'oe ~ ~h~,nn height of 2q. inches and able m withstand
pounds per squr=~ foot a: · he/~=ht o~ I~ inches shove ~e s~ce. This barrier s~.M
spproz~r.~t~ly f'ou~ - s~ f'ee: beyond the outside edges of'the north/south ~Iley. Also,
reflector pos~s need. to be positioned, clesrty v/sibl¢ and pa.-~Ilel tn the bm:'ier.
9. ttT~h'oseedin~. The hydrose~ding ss/nd/can on the L~ndsc=pe P~ nesds m be comp. lemd~
10.
11.
Si~e. A~ s~t~/in a lea/er damd.~us~ 10, · permit w/II need to be obm~ec[ for
Piccadilly P~ si~n, ~nc[ the t=~or'a7 si~n p~2t for 3701 Cent=l Avenue lq~ has e~. ~red.
The b~nn~ will n~d to be removed or mother temporary si~n p~/t wfi/need m be
Both of ~hese items will ne~:I to be completed prior tn the/ssuancs of · FSmt C~c'~: of
Occup. ~ncT.
En~aeeri~ Iaform~io-- Add~tioml informz:/an ~s requir. ' ed by. the City En~..,~r.~a~Sng
storm w'a~r rest~crnrs s~d roof top. wst~ s't~c~je ~ need to be supp. lied to th: Public Works
Deg~-~:mmt prior to the iss~,~cs of~ F/nai C~.-'r~ics~e of Occupa=cT.
F'uml Plat. O~ A.~ 26, 1999, tim ColumSiz K~gh~ City Co~ app~ov~ ~e ~.~ p~ for
Bob~ ~d S~e's A~wor[~ T~ p~ ~ :~ ~ be ~corde~ ~ ~o~ Co~ ~or ~ ~:
=s of~ F~I C~= of Oc~cy.
13. P:rk Dedic:tionJ$20,000. The $20,000 required in I~eu of p~rk L~nd dedics~on w~l ned to be
provided to the Cky p~.or to the issu~ncs of ~ F~1 C~ of Ocli.
14. O~er ~h~emen~ ~ C~ ~ ~voice ~wortd'for pa~ of a po~ of
As mentioned ~ove, the T:~u~or~ry C~-ti~Scste of Oc:u~. m:cy/s ~y e~Sve ~ S~b~ 6, 1999.
~ ~h of ~ 14 i~ ~ ~o~ ~ not co~le~ by S~ 6, ~e ~j~ ~ be ~ ~ be
~ ~o~on o f ~ T~po~ C~ca~ of Oc~. ~ue T~o~ C~ ~y be
~or ~ ~y be ~ m ~e ~g~ o~ ~d ~ Con~ f~ ~h ~y ~ ·
Oc~ ~h~]~ be ~ m ~e B~ 0~ ~ no h:~ ~ [2:06 noon on S~b~ 7. T~
~t ~ be me~ PI~e ~ Ioe 5o~ ~: (6[1) 782-2856 ~you We my ~o~.
Me1Collov~
Building Official
An:~cbr~ent - T~mpor'a~' C~c=:: of Occupancy
K~5' Gullickson
Communi:y Deve!opm~: Ditto:or
City.
..-CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
TE~[PORA.RY CERTIFICATE OF OCCIJ'PA.NCY
Temporary Oc=~a=c'/i~ ~-a=ted. for forv-fi, ve ~y~ for the ~zm:tum Ioc_m~ az
3701 Nor~-x 37~ Avmue, Ci7/of Co!,rmhi~ Hi~,~ M;-n=~ota wib. tle folIowkzg
1) AIl the ~mm IL, x~-~i i~ the ~t~i~ Ie?~z axd memo are me: ~. the lime ~. e~'~ea_
2)
All the rem~3ng az'~a of cen_,~mction, Ca=opy, BoiI~, ¢:c. ~n¢¢~sf-nlly ~a~a a fzrmi
succ~f-uI fim~J, ir~. ~dom ( H~.lth, A__~icultur~, Boami o f Elec~ky, F;-m~,
All the afo~=mer~5.oaed items mus~ be cor~plet~ prior to appI/.ca~iou for · pe..-m~[ Ce."d~c~re
of 0ccupan~ but. :at Iat~ thn~ S~t~b~ 6, I999. ~'
M¢1
Building
cc:
..CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS (J..)
~t5,1999
C 0 bK'~-,Jt~T~ DEvELoP.~E~tT D EP.~d~TW ~-r
3701 Cenmal Avenue ~"E
Bobby V~1{.~
1221 Vv'ashin~an Awnue S.
De~r ircff mad Bobby.
The followin~ provid~ ~ ~ of ~e Lsr,~ that n~d to be r~aolv~ prior to ~e L~canc-~ of any
c~c~zes ofoccupmzcy for Ie~s, Bobby ami Stove's Autowortd at 3701 Cent-al Avenue
Avenue ~ as requir~d by the ~f~=~esota Depsz~zent of Tr~=~ortation will n~d m be
hnCmlled mind ~.~.~ ed on thc ~itc trdor to thc ~m~.~¢c of a T .e~l.~o~ry Ccni~c~te o f
~¢! ~o~ "~ be so de~ m privet ~y ~due H~t ~m b~
~t ~ ~ on ~e b~ ~ 370I C~ Av~ue ~ do nat mca: ~
~c ~c~ of a T~o~ C~c~e of Occup~cy. ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ to
Oc~.
sc,'~e,ning fence has been proposed ~ong t~ke ~or:h alley tot [hue adjacent to ]~08
Inly 1~, 1999
Rese~oir Boulevst~l. 'Itds s~e.':u/ng c:m be accomplished i~ the form oEpIamtin~ th~
~ no Icas t~ 80% opaque or & s~nin5 fence. Pis. us ~ ~ to be subrMt~d ~
illu~L~e the proposed method ofscr~.-zJmg p~oz to ~e Lssuancs of s Tem9orary
Ccmificam o~ Occupancy.
'Fne .appmv~ site pL~= ~=dicares that a 6 foot ~ scre.-m, ~g f~e ~ b~ co~
det~{n~ ~ v~get~o~p~ w~ ~ ~ot less ~h~ 80% op~e c~be
~ for ~e f~c:. k ~gp~ need to be
G~ardr'aJ]. A site pIs~ mind c:oss-s~on dray, ring needs to be submi~ for thc
side of the ~roved nlley ~d ~ por'do~ of the set~{~;~g w~U. ~dj~cen: ~o R~-voir
~ to ~d~ co~o~ ~, ~ ~g, h~ etc.
Impact Barrier. A ~--afSc hmpa~: barrier {s re .?zir~-~i ar the south
e.~g nord~sou~ ~ey ~d ~ m~:o~ on po~ ne~ to be pas/~on~
~d p~eI to ~e ~p~: b~. Pln~s for th~ b~ n~ to be
~m~c~ of a T~o~ C~c~ of Oc=~/.
Retain/n~ W~IL As-built drzvdm~ ofrb. e rock rem{~{=g wsll. wilI need to be suSmS~sed.
to tb.e CiW ~ri. or to ~¢ {ssu~uce of ~ ~mI C~.---:zLtic~ze of Ocz .ug~=c.v.
Fh~aI Plat mud Easement V=c:tiom. On Apdi 26, I999, ~e CoI~b{~ Kei~m CiV
Co~ ~p~v~
1999, ~e
u~W, s~
be ~o~ prior to ~e ~s~c: ~f s ~ C~c~e of Occup~cy.
P=rk Oedic:~a~SZO,O00.
10.
Ot~=r R={mhnr~ememU. Ta= CiW will h~voic= Autoworld for paym~t~z of a pordon of
the coat~ for the tr~mc sra~iy p~form~! by the conmzlthag
Paym~ mu~ be r~=iv~ prior ~o bm.mac= of m Fbaai C.~-'ti~cat= of Occ-~uaacy.
'Fac Iaadzcap{ag ?~ r~=iw~iby ~nW ~ noon ~y ~ m~M~t ~o=on
~ ~ k ~ be ~d for 45 ~ or ~ ~m~.t~ S~ 6, I999,
(612) 792-2818 or ~ ~ou ~ (612) 782-2855 ~you ~ve ~y ~o~ or
Bulking Official
Corem'fruity Devetopmeat Director
City' En.~.~=.~r~. Cozr~'goad. eac=
CC:
FRO~
SUBJECT..
.~0MMUNiTy
· 1~ ~s~ ~ Ken ;~d~on'~ l~c ~, 1999 tear m l<~ G~c!~c~ skc~d
· Upon bill~g by ~e Ci~ of Cot~bia Heighm, p~vidc ~imb~eme= for ~c
· Ugon biting by ~e Ci~ of Co[~i~ Hcighu, provide mim~cm~: for si~e
you have any que~ior~ or
Met Coituva. Building Official
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
C O~'VEVIUNITY DEVELOPM~ENT
Gary L. Peterson
Counc i Lmember$:
DonaLd G. dol:y
HarLaine Szurek
4u[ier~e ~yckoff
John H~ter
City Manger:
~a[ter R. Fehst
July 22, 1999
Kerry Gullicks0n
4506 Robin Circle
Minneapolis, ~ 55422
VIA FAX and U.S. Mall
(612) 512-0823
Re: Lighting and Landscaping Plan Comments.
Dear Mr. Gullickson:
Ttfis letter is being provided to outline the comments as part ofa staffreview of the Landscaping and
Lighting plans submitted to the City of Columbia Heights. The comments are based on the lighting plan
submitted and received by the City of Columbia Heights on July 14, 1999 and as dated luly 1, 1999. The
· lighting plan comments are based upon the lighting plan dated December 30, 1997 and submitted to the
City on June 3, 1998 for lighting at 3701 Central. This plan was later revised on luly 12, 1999 show/ag
the new illumination schedule for the Type "C" fixture on the building facade. Our comments are as
follows.
I.~NDSCAPING PI_~N
i. Minimum tree s~e for ~e s~e ~es ~ proposed ~clu~g ~e Au~ Blue ~ple, P~ O~
md ~o~s ~ome mint be a miuim~ ~ s~e 2 V~ ~ch ~met~ md 7 foot
2. ~e T~y Up ~bo~me to be placed adjac~t to ~e vacu~ m~t be a minlm~ 7 feet ~
heist md 80 p~cmt opaque for s~e~g ~d so~dproo~g p~oses.
3. ~e Black Hills Spruce m be pI~ted no~ of ~e ~proved alley ~d no~ of ~e b~l~g m~
be a minimm 7 feet ~ height ~d m~ ~e 80 percmt opaque s~d.
4. L~cap~g fabric mint be affixed to re~d weed ~o~ ~ all ~e~ wh~e fiv~ rock is
proposed m be
5. ~e Teeny Up ~bomme be~ ~e Res~ok Bogeyed ~veway m ~e Autoworid site ~d
· e ~ley e~ff~ce to Res~ok Bogeyed m~t be a minimm of 4 feet ~ h~ght above ~de
~d mmm~ 80 opaci~ (~e sho~ sm~d is ~lowed ~ ~ reset of~e retaining w~ heist of
a~omtely 3 feet ~ ~s location).
6. ~ ~fion ~st~ M~ be req~d for ongo~g I~cape ma~mcc on site.
7. Hy~o-see~g ~ acceptable ~ ~e ~ ~ sho~ on ~e I~cape pl~. Howev~, it is ~e
o~ re~omfoili~ to adeq~tely wat~ ~d o~se mmm~ said Hy~o-seeded ~ prior
to ~d ~ ~ ~blis~t ~ s~d ~.
8. S~e~ fmc~g ~ proposed is acc~mble ~ ~e locafiom sho~ on ~e l~cap~g pl~ ~d
~s~bed ~ yo~ co~e~ondmce to ~e Ci~ ~ted I~y 2l, 1999. Howev~, a mom de,five
~g of~e fence cross-sechon sho~g ~e d~ ~d ~ecificafio~ for ~e pi~posB
proposed is req~ed md mint be ~ceived ~ ~g for ~e B~l~g Offici~'s ~ew ~d
approve. ~s ~oss-sechon my be reed to supplement ~e ~omhon a~dy prodded ~ yo~
m~o. PI~e ~cate ~e proposed color of ~e almm mils ~ well. Appmml mint be
received prior to
LIGHTING PLAN
1. The radial wave t-~xtures as previously placed on the principal building facade are not acceptable.
The altemat/ve proposal for the Step Neck Deep BowUDownlight light fixtures are an acceptable
alternative for said fixtures (see attached sig'ned approval by owner). Although not required, it is
Kercy Gullickson
.July 22, 1999
Page two
strongly recommended that these same fixtures be installed to replace the radial wave light
fixtures on the 1elf's, Bobby and Steve's Autowerld site at 3828 Central Avenue. Usfiag the same
fixture will maintain a tmi¢orm appearance and uniform lighting presentation to the public and
should reduce the number of complaints received from other property owners.
2. The canopy fixtures as proposed are acceptable in their present location provided the cut off
shields remain in place on all fixtures on all four sides and the three foot candle ordinance
ma'~;il~lu~l is no_t exceeded at the property line.
3. We are aware as a result of recent conversations that there is some interest to improve the lighting
on the south side of the lot at 3701 Central Avenue NE. Staffwill consider and review proposed
modifications to the lighting as previously submitted provided the three foot candle maximum is.
not exceeded and undue light therefrom is not directly visible from the public fight-of-way and
adjacent properties (see attached). Furth=,more, plans submitted for your proposedlighting on
the fence piers will also be considered provided the same standard is maiutained.
O'I'H {~:R ISSIJ~S
I. Rooftop screen{rig must be installed around the roof top equipment vis,lc to the public at 3701
Central Avenue NE.
2. The required traffic impact barrier shov~ on the landscape plan at the south side oYthe
north/south alley in the block must be modified to comply with the City Engineer requirements as
previously identified in correspondence from him dated July 14, 1999 and attached t~ the
temporary Certificate of Occupancy. This must include the installation of safety reflectors
mounted on three posts as previously noted.
3. As you requested, I have attached various correspondence items from the Building Official/Fire
Dep~uent related to plan review comments for this project. I hope these will meet your needs!
If you have any questions with the above comments, please feet free to contact me at your earliest
convenience. For your information, I will be out of town on vacation from and including July 23, 1999
through August 1, 1999. You may contact Joe Hollman in my absence. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation and we look forward to the successful completion of these final items.
Community Development Director
Attachments
Bobby Williams
SeffBahe
Honorable Mayor Gazy L. Petezson
City Cotmeil Members
Waiter Fehst, City Ma.age:
Jim. Hoc~ City Attorney
loc Hollmnn. City planner
Mel Collova, Building Official
Kevia Hansen, Public Works Director
file
H:\autowort dlightlandscape
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
M. ay I0, 1999
CITY OF COLUI~fBIA HEIGHTS
P~Ul Stephenson
Attorney at Law
301 Fou~ Avenue South
270 Ca'ain Exchange North
Minneapulis, Mlq 55415
Re: Auto World Contribution for Gateway Sigm~_mprovements.
De~r Paul:
As follow up to your phone cml of May 7, 1999, please find enclosed the information you requested on
the City Council requirement to contribute f~mds for g-~teway "welcome" sign/knprovements on Lot 2,
Block 2 of the new Auto World subdivision. As you can s~, it w~ directed that up to $20,000 be
con~'/buted to ffgance improvements for a welcome sign or other gateway monumentation ~s well as
other amenities ~n t~ds are~ The purpose of these improvements is to g~eet and introduce the traveting
public to the City of Columbia Heights at the south gateway on Central Avenue. ActuMly, your clients
have proposed to contribute funds for this purpose a,d the L~ngnage that was included in number lIof
the pretiminat7 plat approval made specific reference to funds being contributed as evidenced by copies
of invoices and contractor payments.
I had indicated to you previously that the City Manager would be forwarding this information to Bobby
William~. However, due to Mr. W01~am~ schedule they have not been able to commtmicate regarding
these issues. 1 ~ sending this information for your reference and follow up on behalf of Bobby and
Steve's Auto WorlcL La a conversation today with the City Manager, he suggested that it may be more
administratively convenient to set up an escrow account where the 520,000 in funds fi:om Auto World
would be deposited. The improvements that are made to the site would be Financed fi:om the monies in
the escrow account, not to exceed the $20,000, and would be subject to City Council approval.
Supporting documentation would be available for review by Auto World representatives at any time.
Should an amount less than the 520,000 ~c~,ally be expended on the site, remaining funds could be
reimbursed by the City fi:om the escrow account to Auto World. ~
Please re, flew the attached information and I would be interested in entertaining any suggt~tiens you
have to simplify the process, yet still achieve the objective to rece/ve the cash contribution for the
desired improvements. The City Council is eager to complement the fine development in progress at
Bobby and Steve's Auto World on both sides of the highway by erecting some gateway monumentation
of comparable q, ullty. I look forward to hearing fi:om you soon!
K~'nneth K. And~on
~ommunity Development Director
Enclosures
c: Wait Fehst
~oe Hollman
City Council Work Session Item
October 18, 1999
Issue: Handling Hard Surface Hardships
Background
The Housing Maintenance Code requires all residential property to have hard-surface
driving and parking areas on their property. The Fire Department has been working on
enforcement of this ordinance for over 1 year. Recently, several cases have come to
light which appear to be significant hardships. Three cases in particular have given us
cause to seek direction from Council. Circumstances of these cases differ slightly but
all involve a homeowner who is elderly and claims to be living on a fixed income which
makes installing hard-surface financially unreasonable. According to the homeowners,
the option of using Iow interest loan funds is even beyond their financial capability.
Additional factors in the particular situations are as follows:
Walker:
Existing driveway is two dirt ruts that run from the street to an old
garage located deep on the property. Length of the driveway to be
hard-surfaced is an issue. Ms. Walker does not apparently own
her own vehicle nor does she drive.
Carlson:
Financial hardship appears to be the only issue. Mr. Carlson has a
vehicle and does use his driveway.
Diaczuk:
This driveway slopes below grade level to his garage. Mr. Diaczuk
has looked into paving the driveway in the past but was
recommended against it because of the inability to drain water
which would then end up on the floor of his garage. Mr. Diaczuk
has not driven for several years and the entire driveway has grown
over with grass.
Analysis
According to a literal reading of the ordinance, anything short of complete compliance
with the ordinance would require a variance. The body charged with making decisions
relating to variances is the Planning and Zoning Commission; the Fire Department does
not believe it has the authority to allow partial solutions.
Other homeowners have been referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission when
they have presented valid reasons for not complying completely with the ordinance.
There have been 3 appeals to date presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission,
with mixed results for the homeowners involved.
Presenting to the Planning and Zoning Commission does not appear to be an option
these homeowners feel is worth pursuing, potentially because of the $100.00 fee for
doing so. The homeowners who have appealed thus far have been charged this fee as
it is the standard fee for any type of appeal
Action
Discussion and direction regarding how to handle hardship cases.
c2-99244.wpd
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
WALT FEHST, CITY MANAGER
October 14, 1999
WORK SESSION ITEM-AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT -- NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The attached amendment expands the purpose of the Northstar Corridor and has minor changes
which allow more members to join and be active in the coordination effort for the rail
development.
Attached is a copy of a survey of Northstar Corridor residents about their possible usage of the
rail line. This was conducted by Shandwick Corporation, which is one of the parties we discussed
our public relations efforts for the community center with.
cb
Attachment
September 29, 1999
Donald Jolly
City of Columbia Heights
4941 4th Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Subject:
Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing
the Northstar Corridor Development Authority
Dear Donald:
At its September 2, 1999 meeting, the NCDA approved the enclosed Amendment No. 1
to the Joint Powers Agreement. It is important to note that the Amendment expands
the purpose of the NCDA. The original Agreement was drafted to give the NCDA the
authority to examine the feasibility and environmental impacts of commuter rail and
other transportation improvements. The amended Agreement allows the NCDA to
move the project into the next phases of development through construction.
Additionally, the Amendment prDvide, s that Morrison County and its cil;ies and towns on
t,,he Corridor are eligible member~ The NCDA--also considered the request from the
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) for membership and referred the
request to the Executive Committee for a decision as to whether to include the RCRRA
as an eligible member. Page 2 of the Amendment refers to Article II. Joint Powers
Board Members and Term. The, Ramses/County R~ninn~l Railroad Aut,horit¥ is,
!ncluded as a government unit eJi(~ible for a "Coo~dinatin~ MembershiD." "The purpose
ot tt~e ~;oordinating Memberships is to tacilitate coordination with other
rail/transportation corridors that may be affected by decisions made by the Authority."
Coordinating members are non-voting members and the Authority must approve their
membership.
Northstar Corridor Development Authority
2100 3® Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2265 (612) 323-5700 Fax: (612) 323-5682
Amendment No. 1
September 29, 1999
page two
Please submit the attached Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Powers Agreement as
soon as possible to your respective governing bodies for approval and execution
by the authorized officials. We would like to receive full approval from all
members no later than December 2,1999.
Please note that it is necessary for each and every member to execute the Amendment
in order for the changes to become effective.
If you have any questions, please call Mary Richardson at 651-222~7227.
Sincerely,
Chair
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE
NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THIS AMENDMENT NO. I is made by and between the undersigned Counties,
Regional Railroad Authorities, Cities, and Townships, all being governmental units of
the State of Minnesota, (hereinafter the "Members") pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 471.59
and 398A.04, subd. 9, and shall be effective upon execution by each of the Members.
WHEREAS, the Members have entered into a joint powers agreement
(hereinafter the "Agreement") for the purpose of establishing the Northstar Corridor
Development Authority (hereinafter the "Authority") to analyze the feasibility and
environmental impacts of integrated transportation improvements along the Highway 10
corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that commuter rail in the Northstar
Corridor is technically feasible; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, the Minnesota Legislature authorized the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to develop, construct, and operate commuter rail in
Minnesota and to delegate its authority to joint powers boards established for this
purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Members desire to amend the Agreement to authorize the
Authority to develop and construct commuter rail and associated improvements in or
related to the Northstar Corridor and to enter into all agreements necessary or
desirable to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that
each Member shall derive herefrom, and other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Members agree to amend the Agreement
as follows:
Article 1 of the Agreement is amended by adding a new paragraph following the
existing language that reads as follows:
Additionally, the purpose of the parties is work together to meet the future
transportation needs of the Northstar Corridor with the following four
goals:
(1) Improve mobility and safety;
(2) Minimize adverse environmental impacts and foster positive
environmental effects;
(3) Encourage transportation-supportive land use and
development patterns; and
(4) Provide a cost-effective and efficient transportation system.
In the furtherance of this purpose, the parties authorize the Authority to
accept the delegation from the State of the responsibility and authority to
develop commuter rail in the Northstar Corridor, including but not limited
to preparing an advanced corddor plan, financial and operating plans,
negotiating with the railroads, preliminary engineering, final design, and
construction.
2. Article II of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE II. JOINT POWERS BOARD MEMBERS AND TERM
The government units that are eligible to participate in this joint powers
agreement include:
Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
Morrison County Regional Railroad Authority
St. Cloud/Stearns County Regional Railroad Authority
Sherburne County Regional Railroad Authority
County of Anoka
County of Hennepin
County of Sherbume
City of Anoka
City of Big Lake
City of Clear Lake
City of Coon Rapids
City of Fridley
City of Minneapolis
City of Rice
City of St. Cloud
City of Sauk Rapids
Becker Township
Big Lake Township
Haven Township
Little Falls Township
Watab Township
County of Benton
County of Morrison
County of Stearns
City of Becker
City of Blaine
City of Columbia Heights
City of Elk River
City of Little Falls
City of Ramsey
City of Royalton
City of Sartell
City of Spring Lake Park
Bellevue Township
Clear Lake Township
Langola Township
Sauk Rapids Township
Additional governmental units may be eligible to participate if approved by the
Authority. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be effective as to an
eligible participant when the Agreement has been executed by the duly authorized
representatives of that pady. This Agreement shall commence when it has been duly
executed by Anoka County and Sherburne County or their respective railroad
authorities and shall continue until terminated as provided herein.
2
Government units that are located within rail/transportation corridors other than
the Northstar Corridor are eligible to participate as non-voting, coordinating members
(hereinafter referred to as "Coordinating Members" or "Coordinating Memberships").
The purpose of the Coordinating Memberships is to facilitate coordination with other
rail/transportation corridors that may be affected by decisions made by the Authority.
The government units that are eligible for a Coordinating Membership include, but are
not limited to, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, the Red Rock Corridor
Commission, and Isanti County. Coordinating Members may be eligible to participate if
approved by the Authority.
Article IV of the Agreement is amended by adding new paragraphs G. and H. as
follows:
The Authority shall seek, receive, and manage federal, state, and
local funding, in conjunction with Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan
Council.
The Authority shall perform the responsibilities delegated by the
Commissioner of Transportation for development and construction
of commuter rail, pursuant to an agreement with the State of
Minnesota and subject to the condition that sufficient funds are
received.
Article V, Section 2, Paragraphs B, F, and G of the Agreement are amended to
read as follows:
The Authority may enter into any contract necessary or proper for
the exercise of its powers or the fulfillment of its duties, including
agreements entered into pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 471.59, 398.04,
subd. 9, and 174.82, and enforce such contracts to the extent
available in equity or at law. The Authority may approve any
contract relating to this Agreement up to the amount approved in
the annual budget, and may authorize the Chair of the Authority to
execute those contracts. No payment on any invoice for services
performed by a consultant or any other person or organization
providing services in connection with this Agreement shall be
authorized unless approved by the Executive Committee.
The Authority may apply for and accept gifts, grants or loans of
money, other property or assistance from the United States
Government, the State of Minnesota, local government units, or
any person, association or agency for any of its purposes; enter
into any agreement in connection therewith; and hold, use and
dispose of such money, other property to the parties and
3
assistance in accordance with the terms of this gift, grant or loan
relating thereto.
The Authority may acquire, hold, and dispose of such real and
personal property as may be required to accomplish the purposes
of this Agreement and upon termination of this Agreement, make
distribution of such property as is provided for in this Agreement,
agreements relating to the financing of the Northstar Corridor, or
agreements with the State of Minnesota.
Article V, Section 2, of the Agreement is amended by adding new paragraph I.
as follows:
I. The Authority may sue and be sued in its own name.
Article VI, Section 3, of the Agreement is replaced by the following:
Section 3: Committees.
A. Executive Committee. The Authority shall establish an Executive
Committee of the Authority consisting of five members and
alternates, including one representative from a city, a town, a
county and a regional railroad authority, as well as the Chair of the
Authority. In establishing the Executive Committee, the Authority
shall consider geographic balance in the representation on the
Committee. The Executive Committee shall be responsible for
approving invoices within approved contract amounts, addressing
personnel issues, fulfilling the day-to-day management
responsibilities of the Corridor Coordinating Committee described
in Minn. Stat. § 174.86, subd. 5, and performing such other duties
as set forth in the Authodty's bylaws.
Capital Budaet Committee. The Authority shall establish a Capital
Budget Committee of the Authority consisting of one member and
alternate from each of the following: the Anoka County Regional
Railroad Authority, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad
Authority, Sherbume County Regional Railroad Authority, and
Benton County. The Authority may add one or more additional
members to the Capital Budget Committee if that member has
made a significant contribution to the capital funding of the
Northstar Corridor. The Capital Budget Committee shall be
responsible for making recommendations to the Authority
concerning any decision regarding the capital costs or capital
budget for the Northstar Corridor and performing such other duties
as set forth in the Authodty's bylaws. Any decision that would
increase the capital contribution of any member must be approved
by a unanimous decision of the Capital Budget Committee and
4
10.
must be approved by the member's board of commissioners or
council.
Article VII of the Agreement shall be amended by adding a new Section 5 as
follows:
Section 5: Capital Financinq. It is understood by the parties that the
capital costs of the Northstar Corridor project are to be funded primarily
by grant monies from the United States Government, the State of
Minnesota or any other association or agency. In addition, it is
contemplated that certain member counties and regional railroad
authorities will contribute funding for capital costs pursuant to agreements
independent of this Agreement.
Article VII of the Agreement shall be amended by adding a new Section 6 as
follows:
Section 6: Operations and Operations Financing. Nothing in this
Agreement shall create an obligation or authorize the Authority to operate
or finance the operations of commuter rail in the Northstar Corridor.
This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
The terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect, except as modified herein, and shall apply to this Amendment No. 1
as if fully set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Amendment No. I to the Joint
Powers Agreement Establishing the Northstar Corridor Development Authority have
hereunto set their hands on the date written below:
ATTEST:
BY:
Title:
Dated:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BY:
Title:
Dated:
Approved as to form and Execution
BY:
Title:
Dated:
6
Shandwick
8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Suite 500
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437
Telephone: 612-832-5000 Facsimile: 612-831-8241
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
COPY:
Sept. 15, 1999
NCDA Board Members
Heidi Weaver
Survey of Northstar Corridor Residents
NCDA Project Management Team and Eric Pehle
As a follow up to Shandwick's Sept. 2 presentation to the NCDA Board, we thought it would be
helpful to send the enclosed information about the survey to each of you. We plan to release the
survey information to the media within the next week, and therefore encourage each of you
to become familiar with the survey results.
This package contains graphs depicting responses for all 19 survey questions, as well as trends for
each of the counties with residents who participated in the survey. (You have previously received
from us a document providing analysis from the research firm, which was included in Board
ageada packet, as well as the full list of survey questions, which was handed out at the Sept. 2
Board meeting.)
There are some very encouraging results coming out of this survey. For instance:
Three quarters (73 percent) of residents believe commuter rail is a good idea.
· / 7 percent of respondents indicate they would use commuter rail as their primary method
commuting to work. This is four times as many people as currently use mass transit in the
Twin Cities~ percent of the population.
· Survey respondents agree that a wide variety of people, groups and communities will benefit
from commuter rail--such as senior citizens, businesses and St. Cloud. In addition, more
than a third of residents indicate they would personally benefit from commuter rail.
Survey findings also indicate that many residents could be better informed:
· Only one in five residents recognize there is a difference between commuter and light rail.
· Just over half of respondents (57 percent) have heard of the commuter rail project.
· Less than one third o£ residents (30 percent) are informed about the commuter rail project.
We encourage you to share the results of this survey with your colleagues, city officials and
community leaders. Please contact the NCDA Administration Team if you would like assistance
in coordinating a formal survey presentation in your community. We are enthused about the
many positive findings of this initial survey, and hope you are, too. Feel free to call us at 612-
832-5000 with any specific questions about the survey results, etc.
Northstar Corridor Residents Survey County Breakouts
The methodology of the NCDA's transportation survey uses a statistically valid sample of the Northstar
Corridor's population. The sample size of 500 is proportionate to populations within Anoka, Benton,
Hennepin, Sherburne, Stearns and Wright counties that are within five miles of the corridor. (NOTE: In
the case of Hennepin county, the southern "boundary" is less than five miles.)
THE FOLLOWING COUNTY BREAKOUTS MEASURE ONLY THE ATTITUDES OF THE
PEOPLE SURVEYED IN THE GIVEN COUNTY AND, WHILE THEY ARE EXCELLENT
INDICATORS OF THE COUNTY RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES, THEY FALL OUTSIDE OF THIS
SURVEY'S STATISTICAL RELIABILITY OF +/- 4 PERCENT.
Key Findings in Anoka County
Compared with residents in the other five counties, Anoka County residents were most likely to rank
relief of congestion (42 percent) as the most important goal for the Northstar Corridor project.
· Nearly four out of 10 (38 percent) Anoka County residents say that they would personally benefit
from the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line.
· Anoka County residents are most likely to be "very dissatisfied" with their commute and/or transit
options in their area.
· Compared with residents in the corridor's other five counties, Anoka County resident~s have seen the
greatest increase in congestion on their way to/from work. More than half(55 percent) of Anoka
County residents say their commute is more congested today than it was five years ago.
Key Findings in Benton County ~
· The vast majority of Benton County residents believe the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project is
a good idea (83 percent).
· Compared with residents in the other five counties, Benton County residents are most likely to rank
cost-effective and efficient travel (40 percent) as the most important goal for the Northstar Corridor
project.
· Compared with the other five counties, Benton County residents would be most likely to use the
Northstar Corridor commuter rail line to access social/cultural activities (57 percent) and visit
friends/relatives (40 percent).
· Compared with residents in the five other counties, Benton County respondents were much more
likely to rank these three factors as influential in determining whether they would use the Northstar
Corridor commuter rail line: clean and safe rail stations (37 percent), clean and safe rail cars (33
percent) and frequency/on-time reliability (33 percent). Similar to residents in other counties, Benton
County residents also gave park-and-ride facilities a high ranking (37 percent).
Key Findings in Hennepin County
· Most Hennepin County respondents (41 percent) ranked relief of congestion as the most important
goal for the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project.
· Nearly a third (31 percent) of Hennepin County respondents are dissatisfied with their work commute
and/or transit options in their area.
· A third of Hennepin County residents (34 percent) say that they would personally benefit from the
Northstar Corridor commuter rail line.
· Hennepin County residents ranked park-and-ride facilities as the No. I factor influencing whether
they ~vould use the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line (39 percent).
Northstar Corridor Residents Survey--County Breakout
Page 2
Key Findings in Sherburne County
· The vast majority o[ Sherburne County residents (82 percent) believe the Northstar Corridor
commuter rail project is a good idea.
· Of all the counties, Sherburne County had the highest percentage of respondents (42 percent) who say
they would personally benefit from the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line.
· Of all the counties, Sherbume County had the highest percentage of respondents (40 percent) who am
dissatisfied ~vith their ~vork commute and/or transit options in their area. Residents were also most
likely (36 percent) to rank relief of congestion as the most important goal for the Northstar Corridor
project.
Of all the counties, Sherburne County had the highest percentage of respondents (22 percent) who
would use the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line for their regular commute to work. The No. I
reason Sherbume County respondents say they would use the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line
would be to access social/cultural activities (42 percent).
Key Findings in Stearns County
· Of all the counties, Stearns County had the highest percentage of respondents (84 percent) who
believe the Northstar Corridor commater rail project is a good idea.
· Nearly four out of 10 (36 percent) of Stearns County respondents say they would personally benefit
t'rom the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line.
· In terms of goals for the Northstar Corridor project, cost-effective/efficienttransportation ranked No.
1 with Steams County respondents (34 percent), followed closely by relief of congestion (33 pement).
· Of ali the counties, Steams County had the highest percentage of respondents ranking cost of fare
(36 percent) and proximity to retail centers (25 percent) as factors influencing their decision whether
to use the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line. Similar to the other counties, the No. 1 factor for
Stearns County respondents was park-and-ride facilities (38 percent).
Key Findings in Wright County
· Three quarters (75 percent) of Wright County respondents believe the Northstar Corridor commuter
rail project is a good idea.
· In terms of goals for the Northstar Corridor project, relief of congestion ranked No. 1 with Wright
County respondents (40 percent), followed by cost-effective/efficient transportation (35 pement).
Wright County had the highest percentage of respondents ( 18 percent) indicates that addressing safety
concerns is the most important goal.
· Of all the counties, Wright County had the highest percentage of respondents (80 percent) that
believes commuting workers would benefit from the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line.
· Of all the counties, County had the highest percentage of respondents ranking travel time on board
(28 percent) and connections to other transit options (28 percent) as factors influencing their decision
whether to use the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line. Similar to the other counties, the No. 1
factor for Wright County respondents was park-and-ride facilities (45 percent).
Methodology: This survey is based on telephone
interviews with a randomly selected sample of 500
adults who live within five miles of the proposed
commuter rail line in Anoka, Benton, Hennepin,
Sherburne, Stearns and Wright counties.
Based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent
confidence that the maximum error attributable to
sampling and other random effects is plus or minus
4.4 percentage points.
NOTE: All survey numbers have been rounded to
the nearest percentage point.
Great news! Nearly three quarters of residents along
the corridor believe the commuter rail project is a
"good" or "very good" idea.
More than half of respondents said they have heard of
the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project.
NOTE: Individuals who had NOT heard about the
Northstar Corridor commuter rail project (43 percent
of the total sample) were NOT asked the questions
depicted on the following two graphs.
NOTE: Only survey respondents who had heard
about the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project
were asked how they've heard about the project.
The vast majority of people have heard about the
project via newspapers, radio or TV.
NOTE: Only survey respondents who had heard
about the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project (57
percent) were asked whether they are informed about
the project.
Of this group, 52 percent say they are informed about
the project.
Survey respondents were fairly evenly split as to
whether they are aware /unaware of transportation
issues or problems in their area.
2
Only one in five local residents recognizes that there is
a difference between commuter rail and light rail.
Four out of five local residents say there is no
difference between commuter rail and light rail, or
don't know if there is a difference.
More than a quarter of Northstar Corridor residents
are dissatisfied with their commute to work and/or the
transit options in their area.
Nearly half of Northstar Corridor residents say their
commute to work is more congested than it was five
years ago.
It's interesting to note that up to 16 percent of
respondents have moved into the Northstar Corridor
within the last five years -- evidence as to how quickly
this region is growing.
Of the stated goals for the Northstar Corridor project,
residents rank "relieve congestion' as the No. 1
priority. The No. 2 priority is providing cost - effective
and efficient ways to travel.
60 percent of local residents have ridden a commuter
or light rail system at least one time.
Great news! More than a third of local residents
indicate that they would personally benefit from the
Northstar Corridor commuter rail line. Plus, residents
say that many different groups /entities would benefit
from the project.
NOTE: Respondents could give more than one
answer to this question.
FA
Most local residents (37 percent) say they would use
the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line to get to
social and/or cultural activities.
It's also interesting to note that 17 percent say they
would use the commuter rail line as their primary
method for commuting to work, and 19 percent would
use it as a back -up method for commuting to work.
These numbers are extremely favorable when you
consider that 4 percent of Twin Cities residents
currently use public transportation for their work
commutes.
Convenient park -and -ride facilities and cost of fare are
the two factors that would most influence whether
residents would use the Northstar Corridor commuter
rail line.
Most residents would like to learn about the Northstar
Corridor commuter rail project via the media.
Next to the media, the second most popular
information vehicle is direct mail.
E
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
(:ender
30%
25%
20°% 18°%
15% r
10% 7%
5%
0%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
;age
25°% 24%
52`
( ountY
28%
16'
9%
6%
n
II
2% U
n
fl
n
■
II
■
Description or m here ) oil li%c
60% 53%
50%
40% '
I�
30%
17% rl
20% 14% AMMgMVj 14%
10% 2%
0% a
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
0%
,. „nk Its —.o. V. In1 w, d
Annual household income
32%
24%
10% 11%
5% 4
Methodology: This survey is based on telephone
interviews with a randomly selected sample of 500
adults who live within five miles of the proposed
commuter rail line in Anoka, Benton, Hennepin,
Sherbume, Stearns and Wright counties.
Based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent
confidence that the maximum error amibutable to
sampling and other random effects is plus or minus
4.4 percentage points.
NOTE: All survey numbers have been rounded to
the nearest percentage point.
Great news! Nearly three quarters of residents along
the comdor believe the commuter rail project is a
"good" or "very good" idea.
More than half of respondents said they have heard of
the Northstar Comdor commuter rail project.
NOTE: Individuals who had NOT heard about the
Northstar Corridor commuter rail project (43 percent
of the total sample) were NOT asked the questions
depicted on the following two graphs.
NOTE: Only survey respondems who had heard
about the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project
were asked how they've heard about the project.
The vast majority of people have heard about the
project via newspapers, radio or TV.
NOTE: Only survey respondents who had heard
about the Northstar Comdor commuter rail project (57
percent) were asked whether they are informed about
the project.
Of this ~oup, 52 percent say they are informed about
the project.
Survey respondents were fairly evenly split as to
whether they are aware/unaware of transportation
issues or problems in their area.
2
Only one in five local residents recognizes that there is
a difference between commuter rail and light rail.
Four out of five local residents say there is no
difference between commuter rail and light rail, or
don't know if there is a difference.
More than a quarter of Northstar Corridor residents
are dissatisfied with their commute to work and/or the
transit options in their area.
Nearly half of Northstar Corridor residents say their
commute to work is more congested than it was five
years ago.
It's interesting to note that up to 16 percent of
respondents have moved into the Northstar Comdor
within the last five years -- evidence as to how quickly
this region is growing.
Of the stated goals for the Northstar Corridor project,
residents rank "relieve congestion" as the No. 1
priority. The No. 2 priority is providing cost-effective
and efficient ways to travel.
60 percent of local residents have ridden a commuter
or light rail system at least one time.
Great news! More than a third of local residents
indicate that they would personally benefit from the
Northstar Corridor commuter rail line. Plus, residents
say that many different groups/entities would benefit
from the project.
NOTE: Respondents could give more than one
answer to this question.
4
Most local residents (37 percent) say they would use
the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line to get to
social and/or cultural activities.
It's also interesting to note that 17 percent say they
would use the commuter rail line as their primary
method for commuting to work, and 19 percent would
use it as a back-up method for commuting to work.
These numbers are extremely favorable when you
consider that 4 percent of Twin Cities residents
currently use public uansportatlon for their work
corfffnutes.
Convenient park-and-ride facilities and cost of fare are
the two factors that would most influence whether
residents would use the Northstar Corridor commuter
rail line.
Most residents would like to learn about the Northstar
Comdor commuter rail project via the media.
Next to the media, the second most popular
information vehicle is direct mail.
5
For classification purposes only.
For classification purposes only.
For classification purposes only.
6
For classification purposes only.
For classification purposes only.